After looking at my message there, you might be interested in User_talk:Magioladitis#Template:Wikify. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to article's deletion. I insist it be taken through the AfD process, where I can make these arguments in a more public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollmodel (talk • contribs) 10:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the shipwreck list work! cheers SatuSuro 11:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I don't understand is this "of the United States" stuff. Explain, please? - Denimadept (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I changed the name to be consistent with all the other names, 'of Europe', 'of Asia' and so on. And those names are consistent with the pre-existing lists of shipwrecks. I know it sounds a bit odd, because the 'of' implies ownership, but it's better than 'in', which implies the wrecks are all inland. Is that what you're asking me about, or do you have a specific problem with the US article? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have renamed all of them with "in" or "in/around/near", but I'm not trying to make waves. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might be right. I couldn't decide between 'of' and 'in' so I went with established convention. Feel free to rename them if you like. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. K- just noticed your acknowledgement in the closure at Talk:List_of_Oregon_shipwrecks#Merge. Glad we were able to find a solution that worked for everybody! Thanks for the note. -Pete (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your move of the U-20 article. There is no point to distinguish between two ships of different navies by year of construction. Since only the German and the Austro-Hungarian Navy used the prefix SMS/SMU it makes more sense to distinguish by country. BTW can you make sure when you move an article that the links are changed accordingly? Thanks.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking you up on your recent offer to help if I need it. Please refer to article Bob Chappuis. I added the last paragraph under "After Football" way at the bottom and embedded a reference, but in the reflist the reference looks all messed up and I can't figure out what's wrong with my formatting. Could you please look it over and let me know what the problem with it is? Mostly I want to know how to solve the problem myself next time. Cheers. Guyovski (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mistake to make; you forgot to close the citation template with }}. I've fixed it for you [1]. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gee whiz. <blush> Thank you. :) Guyovski (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please refer to Talk:Toronto, index item 9, "Minor edit request?" It has been ignored for about three days now and I don't see that it's a big deal. Guyovski (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. Guyovski (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two outstanding requests on Talk:Deaths in 2012, one regarding Barry MacKay (June 15) and one regarding Thierry Roland (June 16). I also just added a brand new one at the bottom. All involve adding cause of death as per the full Wikipedia article on the deceased. Would you mind following up? (Once I'm autoconfirmed these kinds of requests will no longer be necessary.) Guyovski (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please edit to add my ID to the cookie. :) Guyovski (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to do that, but thank you anyway! :) DoctorKubla (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found out by asking at the Teahouse. Click edit to see the code, as it's quite simple. Guyovski (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Talk:Deaths in 2012#Margie Hyams 14 June 2012. I need clarification on your edit before I change what you did on the main article page. (Which I can do because alluvasudden I'm autoconfirmed. :) ) Guyovski (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Erica Kennedy and Talk:Erica Kennedy and join the discussion there. It would mean a lot to me. Guyovski (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not being quoted, it's being plagiarized, regardless if the source is mentioned. That alone doesn't make it. Nor does the fact it's not in copyright persuade me. And yes, considering how frequently this is happening, I would tag every page that does this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do, & I hold out scant hope for it.

"Misleading"? So what happens when somebody uses WP without quoting DANFS & gets nailed for plagiarizing? I call if fair warning. And it's also completely true, regardless what WP policy is, so what's misleading? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not completely true, it's not even remotely true. Plagiarism, as any dictionary will tell you, means presenting another person's work as your own. If the text is followed by a note saying "this text is taken from DANFS", that's not plagiarism by anyone's standards. Except yours, apparently. Would you be happy if the entire article were encased in quotation marks? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merely mentioning the source doesn't change the fact the exact wording has been copied, & that is plagiarism, whether you like it or not. Merely mentioning the source demands changing the wording. And no, just putting quotes around the whole page wouldn't please me, tho I'm sure it would satisfy the lazy people who are simply copying. How hard is it to change the phrasing when transcribing? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the energy for this, but one last time: that's not what plagiarism means. To quote again from WP:PLAG: "...the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim...and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template". Yes, ideally, every article should be an original piece of work, but the fact that many of them aren't isn't an urgent problem. Readers don't need to be warned that the text of the article is plagiarised (because it isn't), and editors who want to rewrite the DANFS-based articles (which you could quite easily do yourself, by the way) can find them more easily through the category system. So the tag serves no purpose but to highlight a problem that doesn't exist. Since you've already acknowledged that consensus isn't on your side and you're acting contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines, wouldn't this be a good time to drop the stick? DoctorKubla (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 TOCs look good, but you did not use the same format for 2006? I am copying the 2005 format to the corresponding 2006 pages. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. I'll try and keep it consistent. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mate
First off congratulations on your work of recent on the shipwreck lists and this is not meant to hassle you, although I hope that you could revisit your edit on the Advance (1874) as I feel that by your editing may be a little too aggressive
The “core” of the article (excluding info box and further reading) has been edited down from 3583 words down to 1590 words so removing more than half of the information about this vessel (-12,282 characters).
I leave this in your hands as to how you may wish to remove longer quotes but infomation should be retained Best Regards --Whodidwhat (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that more than half the information in the article has been lost. A lot of what I cut was either repetition or trivia. That's the problem with quoting directly from contemporary newspapers - they tend to include a lot of trivial detail that doesn't turn out to be historically significant. Paraphrasing allows us to identify what's relevant and what isn't. Having said that, I may have been a bt over-zealous in this case. I'll have another look at it later.

While we're on the subject of NSW wrecks, do you have any objections to my removing the "further reading" sections from these articles? I've started doing it already, but if it's going to be a problem I'd rather address it now. My reasoning is that the works listed under "further reading" should be directly relevant to the subject of the article (and I won't find out more about, say, the Advance by reading a five-volume book of Australian shipwrecks), but I'm happy to discuss the matter if you disagree. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mate

Thanks for the prompt response, its always hard to convey tone in these discussions so please accept that I am not trying to disrupt your work or bother you

2nd thing first, I have no issues at all with you removing the "further reading" sections feel free

I’m glad that you are willing to have another look at your edit in relation to the Advance please remember that “trivial detail” and “historically significant” are subjective and that these primary sources were recording the facts as they were known at the time

This level of contemporary detail (typically in the shipwreck events section) whether by quote or paraphrased has been used to successfully find some of these previously lost vessels with Wikipedia then the only real place that the history of some of these vessels being fully recorded.

All the best --Whodidwhat (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Please let me know if you encounter any difficulties. Tony (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for making me chuckle. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorKubla I have raised a discussion of your recent editing at the Ships Talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships
Please feel free to put forward your point of view
Regards--Whodidwhat (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your editing. Thank you for your detailed explanations. Another question. There is fully independent from me article [2]. How do you think, may I to place into "Space tourism" only one my picture of space habitant, which was analyzed in this article? Sincerely! --Segrim (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's only a blog, but as far as I'm concerned, it's enough to justify including that picture somewhere on Wikipedia. The problem is, it doesn't really fit into the space tourism article, which currently only describes specific proposals by specific companies. If there was a larger section about the technical challenges of building a space hotel and some of the ideas that have been put forward, that would be a good place for your picture, but then I think that kind of information would be more suited to one of the more in-depth articles, like space architecture.

If I can offer you some friendly advice, it's almost never a good idea to add material you've created yourself to Wikipedia. It could give the impression that you have a conflict of interest, i.e. that you're more concerned with promoting yourself than improving the encyclopedia. Whether or not that's true, it's better not to leave yourself open to that kind of accusation. Try not to edit articles that you have a personal interest in, and concentrate on getting your stuff published in reliable sources. Once you've demonstrated the encyclopedic merit of your work (by getting it published), then odds are good that somebody else will add it to Wikipedia, thus avoiding all the COI issues. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I wasn't clear, let me say it: I draw a distinction between "attribution" & "quotation". A verbatim copying, attributed or not, public domain or not, is taking somebody else's words & presenting them as your own (or, in this case, as WP's voice), & I call that plagiarism. I'm happy to have another view. Actually, since this is pervasive for the DANFS-sourced pages, an ask for broader comment yet might be good. If it opens debate on what is or isn't OK for WP, so much the better. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've replied to your 3O request on this issue at Talk:USS Tang (SS-306)#Plagiarism concerns: 3O; if we could kinda centralize the discussion there, that'd be great. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While are deleting categories on minor Olympic sports, take at look at Category:Olympic glider pilots JMcC (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like those categories already went through CfD. Can't say I agree with the decision to keep, but if that's the consensus, there wouldn't be much point nominating them again. DoctorKubla (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I do understand the desire to recategorize all those Wikify tags, but the sudden rapid influx of new {{copyedit}} tags is hitting the current GOCE backlog elimination drive rather hard. Any chance you could slow down, please, while we consider how best to handle this? I'm in the UK, so going to bed now, but will look in in around 10 hours. --Stfg (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, DoctorKubla! Great work so far. You may want to look into using AWB for quickly moving through pages in the category and making replacements. Anyway, I recently proposed the assumption that "the majority of pages in Category:Articles that need to be wikified are tagged because they have too few wikilinks." Based on what you've seen so far, how valid was that assumption? Guoguo12 (Talk)  21:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty valid, it looks like – see my comment at the CfD. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work on {{Underlinked}}. I have asked about AWB tag support here. I will also update the WikiProject Wikify (WP:WPWF) page(s) to reflect this change. Guoguo12 (Talk)  13:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do consider whether pages need additional tags to replace Wikify. You just used Underlinked at Timi Zhuo, which needs a good deal of copyediting, including external link removal and translation. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm doing my best. I've got a lot of articles to get through. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I have posted a reply at Talk:Donation of Constantine, I am sure you will find my citations satisfactory. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First let me say thanks because under-linked is far more understandable than wikify which left me dazed and confused. So, do you have any guideline as to how many links to other articles would be required to become no longer underlinked?Constant314 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:UNDERLINK is the relevant guideline. I have to say, though, I only gave minor loop feedback a cursory glance, and it's not really a field I know much about, so feel free to remove the tag if you think the article already has enough links. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might care to look again at the entry for Thomas Exley, to offer guidance as to its development, especially regarding links within Wikipedia. It seems that inward links ro the article may be more of a problem than outward ones to other entries. Indeed, I rather wonder how Exley came by an entry in the first place. Others might want to fill out his scientific theories and his theology, but at least the article can serve to show something more of what it was like to teach mathematics in England in the early 1800s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.96.121.92 (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if all the new cleanup templates invented by YellowPegasus (talk · contribs) are appropriate? (like {{SAL-cleanup}}) I don't see any pages documenting them. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated them for deletion. Though I suspect that YellowPegasus is the same person as 96.50.22.205 (talk · contribs) ... -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. I'll weigh in at the TfDs. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think an examination of 96.50.22.205's template changes are also in order... I just rolled back a set of changes that removed CSS classes from {{Xfd-privacy}} -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YellowPegasus was blocked for evading a block (apparently it wasn't a cleanstart) Should I initiate an SPI for the IP address 96.50.22.205 ? -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that IP's been blocked too. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although now it's been pointed out at AN/I that YellowPegasus might have yet another account, User:AnnaHendren. Might be worth conducting aan SPI after all. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else opened one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PIPony22 -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the "wikigraphist" template redirects for deletion at WP:RFD. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning WP:LISTN. I wasn't previously aware of this section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the grammar fixes. :-) I'm a little embarrassed by some of those. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you doing? half the entries in "World records" are about things that have broken world records rather than world records themselves. Please stop.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the category were to contain articles about things that have broken world records, it would become so huge as to be unmanageable. That's why Category:World record holders was deleted. Well, that and the fact that our guidelines advise against categorising people by the awards they've won. I'm not in total agreement with that guideline, so if you want to make the case for recreating Category:World record holders, you'd likely have my support. But current consensus is that world record holders shouldn't be categorised, and certainly shouldn't be mixed in with pages about world records. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McCauley, Edmonton, Spearfish, South Dakota, Organisms at high altitude, they're world records are they?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be removing them from the category in due course. If you'd rather blue whale penis was the last to go, that's fine with me, but I can't see that it makes much difference. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really bothered so long as you remove all entries which are not about records. To be honest I find the category problematic as most world records are indirectly world records and it seems too broad a scope. I'd empty and keep only specific records like world records in sport etc in sub categories.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in! I restrain myself from chiming in any more often that I already do. Doczilla _STOMP! 10:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, how many 18th century British Generals do you know of that were known to their mates as Flower? Eddaido (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links in a "See also" section should bear some relation to the subject of the article. Articles about people with similar names, or about flower-related Shakespearean soliloquies, have nothing to do with the 18th century general Flower Mocher. That said, I can't be bothered arguing about it; add the links back if you like, I won't stop you. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I strongly disagree with you. May your day improve and may you grow less short-fused and less narrow-minded. Eddaido (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on Sinatra, it does seem to have been neglected of late. Thankee. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit on the RfC on the 103rd floor, it isn't accurate. The 103rd floor of the Empire State Building isn't just a catwalk. It has an inside that is a room and leads up to a higher level for maintenance. Leave a message on my Talk page if you'd like. Thank you. Leoesb1032 (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your suggestion was a good one so I bundled the other article in with that nomination. My adding it after your comment means I effectively "made" you !vote for deleting both, though given it was your suggestion I didn't think you'd mind much! Stalwart111 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problem. Thanks for letting me know. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I disagree. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DoctorKubla,

I am asking you for help because I saw you are a pro and help other people. Stephan_Noller is declared as "unclear citation style" but I really do not know what to do as I am a rookie. Could you please help me out?

Many thanks Christoph Chriskle talk

UPDATE: Thank you very much for your help!!! talk Chriskle (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the artists you removed from the Music section in 2012 is T-ara. They are indeed the first Korean girl group to have performed at Budokan with 2 sold out concerts on July 25 & 26 of 2012 in celebration of the group's 3rd year anniversary. The concert on the 26th was professionally recorded in HD audio/video quality and broadcasted in Japan's TBS channel in September 9 of the same year, and it was also transferred to DVD and Blu-ray formats to be commercialized with the name "T-ara Japan Tour 2012: Jewelry Box (Live in Budokan)". The group had other concerts in other cities and venues around Japan in 2012 before the Budokan, the whole concert tour was named precisely "T-ara Japan Tour 2012: Jewelry Box" in support of their first Japanese album "Jewelry Box".

Additional details of the concert tour of 2012, please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-ara_Japan_Tour_2012:_Jewelry_Box

Additional details of the "T-ara Japan Tour 2012: Jewelry Box (Live in Budokan)" DVD/Blu-ray, please refer to http://www.t-araworld.net/2012/11/preorder-t-aras-japan-tour-2012-jewelry.html

Recently in July 12 & 13 of 2013, T-ara returned to the Budokan again with 2 sold out concerts to commemorate the group's 4th anniversary. In September of 2013 the group will go back to Japan for additional concerts in other cities and venues. The 2013 concert tour is called "T-ara Japan Tour 2013: Treasure Box" in support of their second Japanese album "Treasure Box". With this second visit T-ara has become not only the first Korean group to perform at the Budokan but also the first doing it in two consecutive years, 2012 and 2013.

Please verify your update. Thanks... --Andon5150 (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for correcting me. I'll add T-ara back to the list. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the poem and suggested an alt hook. It's odd to me that Ohconfucius complained about me needing to fix the poem, when it wasn't even supposed to be there. SL93 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have removed the tag ("This article or section may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction...") I added to Antoine Charles Louis de Lasalle. Can I take it then that you intend to edit the article to remove much of the utter nonsense that currently makes up most of the supposedly encyclopedic article?

I select, at random, an unsourced piece of fiction, pure and unadulterated, for your enjoyment:

The captain of engineering in Salamanca had a very beautiful Spanish wife. Lasalle, though he was a tender and caring husband who wrote love letters daily to his wife, had his infidelities. He entered the home of the young Spanish lady without warning giving off slight surprise and fear. He charmed and wooed her, eventually making love to her unbeknownst to her husband who then walked in on them in the act. He was outraged and furious, insulting and screaming at Lasalle, which resulted in a duel by sabre, though Lasalle was the most skilled and terrifying duelist of the time. He considered himself as better horseman and swordsman than everybody else and was said to be “a man for high adventure and reckless deeds.” Lasalle was generous enough not attack the man, but contented himself with parrying. But he did so with such vigor that it broke the poor engineer’s wrist. As the engineer was doubled over with fatigue and pain, Lasalle let down a hard blow with the flat edge of his sabre on the man’s back and circled around the engineer amid countless jokes.

Meanwhile, if you know of any better tag with which to show the unsuspecting reader that responsible editors at Wikipedia are aware of the article's serious failings, please go ahead and add it – as soon as possible. Wikipedia already has enough credibility issues without misleading its readers into thinking that that kind of article is what we consider encyclopedic. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag you're looking for is {{story}}. I'll add it to the article. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Thanks. --Technopat (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Following my return from leave, I have done some more work on the above article, adding new references, shortening and rewording sections, and making corrections. I would be grateful if you could have a further look and let me know any areas that continue to cause you concern. Many thanks. Paul W (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested a possible workable hook for Florence Margaret Durham, which has been stalled. The fact used is confirmed from the 1933 online source, and gives some idea of what is really involved in scientific research :-) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could revisit the review, since you're already familiar with the article, though there have been significant edits since last you saw it, both from Orlady and Mary Mark Ockerbloom. Thanks! Note: if not, I have added it to the list of articles needing review, so someone might eventually come by ... BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorKubla, could you go back and take another look at this one? While there has been work on it, and sourcing has been added, the primary source template has been added to the article. This may prove problematic for the nomination. I'm also disappointed (as I imagine you are) that the nominator has not replied at the nomination. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was wondering why you took down my sections for the Tear Down This Wall Page. I thought they were good contributions because they discussed the rhetorical importance of the speech and the major significance behind the meaning of the words "Tear Down this Wall"

Germainefung (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. Editors aren't allowed to contribute their own analysis of an event – this is called original research. If Reagan's use of rhetoric has been discussed in reliable sources, you can use that information to explain in the article how others have analysed the speech, but you can't put forth your own opinions. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Civility Barnstar
	For keeping a cool head and being diplomatic under difficult circumstances :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not getting back about the DYK; this is my first proper day at the computer after being taken down by a stomach bug, a cold, resurgence of the stomach bug and then a short bout of influenza - and all after a failed drive led me to have to reinstall Vista and Win7 on this PC during all of that! Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc. You made some edits here that have me a little confused. Mostly all good, the one that I don't get is the changing of "their" to "its". Is it because the name suggests a singularity? I looked through various other pages like Blur - In recording their follow-up, Blur (1997), the band underwent... Queens of The Stone Age - Their sound has since evolved to incorporate a variety of different styles... Radiohead - Radiohead recorded their debut release, the Drill EP, with Chris Hufford.... and all use the "their". Please could you explain your motivation for the change and why did you not change the "their" in the last sentence of the lead? Cheers. Robvanvee 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind whether the article treats the name as a singular or a plural, but as it stood it was varying between the two. I wanted to make the article consistent so I had to pick one or the other – I went with the singular because the article begins "BEAST is...". By all means change it to the plural form if you prefer. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK makes sense. thanks for the explanation! Robvanvee 05:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't cannibalism more like, Killing a person and then eating it, or eating the dead human? While Aghoris only eat the left overs of the dead body, it's hard to say, if they are actually cannibal. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reliable source, in regards of "aging", none of the given sources mentioned about aging, that's why. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism is just the consumption, by humans, of human flesh/organs/etc. It doesn't really matter whether the person being eaten is dead or alive, or who killed them. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They steal the flesh when the family of the deceased is distracted, sitting on the steps, taking tea. The whole body doesn't always burn and turn to ash, some flesh remains and it floats in the river, so they take this and eat it.", that's the whole line. The person didn't really accused them of stealing dead bodies. So that line can be removed, don't you think so? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "one of the member of dom report that they eat the remains of human dead body, whether they are ashes or left over of cremated one" ? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They steal the flesh when the family of the deceased is distracted". How else can you interpret that, other than as saying that they steal dead bodies? DoctorKubla (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still, not the dead body, dead body is burned, people left, whatever remain, aghoris will take it away. That's how it is. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you're saying. I'll replace the word "steal" with "take", then. The main point is that it contradicts the claim that Aghoris only eat volunteered flesh. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either remove the line, or just add something that re-directs that they eat the human remains. Sorry for bothering. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, just checked, it's enough for now. CYA Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To unsubscribe remove your username from this list. EdwardsBot (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorKubla, from what I can see, the nominator took your DYK talk-page message on November 9 and combined it under the heading for the previous message, but didn't do a thing about the issues you raised on the article. It's been just about a month: I think it's time to do a final review. If it's really close, then say so; if significant sourcing issues remain, then I think it's probably time to close this very old nomination. Thanks for anything you can do to move this along. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my addition. I overlooked the fact that it was a "See Also" section. I am actually planning on adding a page for it, but until there is a page, it shouldn't be listed under see also. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aghoris are "northern indian splinter sect of hinduism" is clearly Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight, there's no need of introduction since they have their own page. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few extra words explaining who the Aghoris are is not undue weight. See the final bullet at WP:LINKSTYLE: don't make readers have to to click a link in order to understand the sentence. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aghoris "of north india", is dubious, since aghori is not just limited with the cremation ground. "splinter sect of hinduism", is WP:FRINGE since there's no such sect of Hinduism see Hindu denominations. And finally, its not even sourced. So? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Aghoris are Indian ascetics... who", may work, there are multiple sources, of this info, first, second, third, and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are already three sources present in the paragraph. One of them ("Indian doc...", Today) describes Aghoris as "a secretive sect of Hindu ascetics" living "in the hills of northern India". Another (Encounter, ABC) calls them "a little-known community in north India" and says that "the most visible Aghoris share much in common with Hindu sadhus". But look, I really don't care all that much. "Indian ascetics" is fine, if calling them a Hindu sect is so controversial. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had viewed this? :-

Talk:Cannibalism#On_20th_Century_section

Bladesmulti (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorKubla, thanks for reviewing the DYK nomination for Inchdrewer and George Ogilvy. I've left a note on the nomination template. Sorry to also post here but I wasn't sure if you watch listed them or not. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki-kitten is here to express my thanks for your help with maintaining the DYK process. Your assistance is highly appreciated!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Oregon shipwrecks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nehalem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you review this ({{Did you know nominations/Armatix iP1}}) and let me know the lacking parts. I watch your talk page and nomination template. --Anton^Talk 01:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to hijack someone else's review. I will suggest, however, that you re-read the article and do some copyediting (the final sentence, for example, just doesn't make sense). DoctorKubla (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment about alt2 needing the date in the article, this has since been added so could I ask if you could please give it a green tick? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorKubla, I'm here onbehalf of WP:ORPHAN in which you are also a participant. So, we want your opinion to a WP:ORPHAN related matter. It is a proposal by Technical 13. Please have a look here. Your opinion (i.e support, oppose etc) are very much appreciated there. Thank you. By Jim Cartar through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your "Restructuring" section on the 'Talk' page of the article "Dead-end pages". Regarding your statement "I've kept the stuff about how to generate a list of dead-end pages using AWB", I think that the entire section "Finding dead-end pages" should be deleted for these reasons:

1. It's irrelevant. The lead section of the "Dead-end pages" article contains a "Dead-end pages progress" template with a link to "Category:All dead-end pages".
2. It's confusing to new users. I read the "Dead-end pages" article, hoping to participate in a Wiki cleanup project. When I hit the section "Finding dead-end pages", I first thought that I would actually need to perform those 11 steps to generate the list of articles with no internal links.

If a valid reason exists for keeping the 11 steps around, then I think that the "Articles written by a single editor" project handles their similar procedure much more gracefully. See the section "Notes", specifically the bullet that begins "Technophiles might be interested in collaborating on the source code..." in the article Wikipedia:Articles written by a single editor.

Why am I writing these thoughts to you? Because you were bold enough to make many changes to the "Dead-end pages" article before, so I'm hoping you'll be bold enough to delete the "Finding dead-end pages" section now. I'm not.

--LukasMatt (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! i had a look at your page and patrolled it, i was wondering if you could go over why it has to be in a full list when you could slowly write a page about each of them? Thanks! Dudel250 (talk) 07:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create that list, I just split it off from the overlong List of assassinations. I'm not sure what you mean about writing a page about each of them – most of the people on the list do have an article, and even if they all did, the list wouldn't be any less useful. I see you've added some tags: I removed {{overcoverage}} on the basis that this is just part of a larger list with a global scope, and I'd appreciate an explanation of the {{overly detailed}} tag – do you mean the entries aren't concise enough? Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it as terms like "communist coup" and suggested the pages because people who didn't do any research on the people may not get some terms or Phrases or wonder about things. i do notice now that most of the people have a page though so i guess thats fair enough. did over react a bit with the {{tl|overcoverage}} tag and i do admit i am a fairly new patroler anyway. sorry for any hassle i have caused Dudel250 (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a link from the archives of the city of Alkmaar of this map:

http://www.archiefalkmaar.nl/beeldbank/9a5bede0-ce28-4584-9494-06c0abef1af9

The picture is self explanatory, the map is from a reliable source.

I intend to add this to the page using the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Springelkamp (talk • contribs) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the map features a picture of a chain similar to Gunter's. That's all that can be said about it. However, you inferred from that picture that Gunter didn't invent the chain described in the article, and that an identical device was being used in Holland a decade earlier. Per WP:OR, Wikipedia editors can't draw conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in a reliable source; if you want to claim that Gunter's chain – not just a similar chain, but one meeting the exact same description as Gunter's – had already been invented in 1607, you'll need a very reliable source making that exact claim. A picture doesn't cut it. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was delivered on behalf of WikiProject Wikify. To stop receiving messages from WikiProject Wikify, remove your name from the recipients page. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the February drive has been started. Better late than never! Come on, sign up! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the April drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) One hand on the mouse, one hand on the keyboard... and the feet can do the rest! Hee-hee! (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

• This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doctor Kubla. After several HOURS of effort on my part, seems you removed the listing I created for Vancouver, subsuming it under "Keys to the City." To that effect, you further excluded mention of all variety of "Businessmen and Philanthropists" (e.g. Joseph H. Cohen), whilst including other equivalent individuals (e.g, Jack Diamond). What is your rationale for such "discrimination?" I received an email regarding the issue of "disambiguation," but the list cited at the vancouver.ca website is filled with spelling errors and omits middle initials in certain cases whilst, in other cases, includes middle names that are NOT included within WIki URLs pertaining to various individuals. The reason I created a special category for Vancouver revolves around two issues: my involvement in the creation of the Joseph H. Cohen listing that had me doing much research into the Freeman award he received, plus, the fact that, after my investigation, I discovered that, unlike a mere "Key to the City," a "Freedom of the City" also allows the individual to park a car next to a fire hydrant, upon a sidewalk, in a permit parking zone, by an expired parking meter, etc. WITHOUT any negative repercussions. Hence, the name...."Freedom." I know of NO "keys to the city" that allow such special privilege. There is simply no equivalency and that is why Vancouver is a special case in Canada and requires special mention in the "Freedom of the City" category.....so please, if you find this syllogism to be compelling, then replace the listing you removed and return it to the appropriate category in its entirety. Thank you, Doctor.

CanadianBiographies111 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Doctor, one other question: don't you think that Recipients of Freedom of the City and/or Recipients of Keys to the City should be provided a CATEGORY listing, in both cases? Seems that would make sense. Naturally, as a relative "amateur" in regard to Wiki editing, I will defer to your expertise.......and thanks for your assistance in this matter.

CanadianBiographies111 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The listing of Vancouver freemen already existed at List of Keys to the City in Canada#Vancouver – I removed your list because it duplicated existing content. I'll admit I should have compared the lists more thoroughly; since they were both based on the same source, I assumed they were equally comprehensive, but looking at it again, I see there's a few notable people on your list that are missing from the existing one. I'll go through and add them in now. Bear in mind that non-notable people (loosely defined as "people who don't have a Wikipedia article") are generally excluded from lists like this.

With regard to the difference between Keys and Freedoms, the "British Columbia" section of the Canada list explains that B.C. municipalities grant the Freedom of the City instead of a Key – you could expand this section with sourced info on the privileges that come with it, if you like.

I don't have much experience with categories, so I can't speak with any authority on the subject, but I think the idea is that articles are categorized by their defining characteristics, and not many people are defined by their possession of the Freedom of a city. Another problem I forsee is that some people (e.g. heads of state) seem to be granted the Freedom of just about every city they visit, so you'd have to add a whole long list of categories to their articles (and I know some editors get very wound up about "category clutter"). So like I said, I'm no expert, but I don't think creating categories of freemen is a good idea.

Hope this helps. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor, I must say that your logic is compelling. I did not consider several of the issues you raised and so, yes, I must agree with you. Smart analysis on your part! If I can add anything to your completed product, naturally, I will be happy to assist.

CanadianBiographies111 (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Doctor, there are several people on that list whose Wiki listings indicated NO association with Vancouver or British Columbia or even Canada itself....therefore, that likely means such people should NOT be included. I had planned to correct that error(s) but never got a chance to do so the other day. Just thought I should make you aware of the issue.....either it means the person in question does not have a Wiki listing, with or without middle name and/or initial..... or possibly it represents an error in the very name itself?

CanadianBiographies111 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there might be a few cases of mistaken identity – feel free to remove any entries that don't seem to fit. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Just spreading a message to the members of WikiProject Wikify that the June drive has been started. Come on, sign up! :) "A wiki of beauty is a joy forever." Seriously. That's how long it'd take to read! (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to take a moment to personally thank you for your input at Talk:List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. In my opinion that list had gone without clear inclusion criteria for far too long, and it was unfortunate that every time a discussion was started about such it stalled out. I'm hoping we can get additional editors to weigh in so that we have a stronger consensus, but just hearing from you was, I think, a tremendous step forward. Thanks again, and if there's ever a time where you feel my input might be of use, feel free to contact me! DonIago (talk) 13:18, 22 June 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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Month Year" redirects. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my lurking about, but I'm not seeing such a thread? Tried tracking it down through your contributions, but was unsuccessful. Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thread was archived a few days ago; not sure why I'm being notified about it now (it's connected to this discussion, Donlago, if you're curious). Geoffrey, there's no need to keep bringing this subject up in various places – I've already said I'll undertake the necessary labour myself if no-one answers your bot request, and we've established that no admin tools are needed. I'll try and get it done next week. (Of course, if you're feeling impatient, you could always just do it yourself...) DoctorKubla (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Talk:January 1997. Since you had some involvement with the Talk:January 1997 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Underlinked has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Gilliam (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you applied a G4 speedy deletion tag to Einstein syndrome -- even though that AFD had been 8 years ago, and the new version had been rewritten from scratch. 46 contributors had made 84 edits to the article, since that first AFD. Administrator @Liz: did delete the article, after your tag. I think they should have declined to complete your speedy. I am going to assume they were tired, or overworked.

Anyhow, if you are going to tag articles for speedy deletion, in future, could you please be more careful? Geo Swan (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article has been deleted six times. It was also deleted because of the previous AFD in 2013 as well and deleted again by Favonian after I deleted the article. I'm glad that the article has been rewritten and is well sourced. I'm just not sure why you are raising objections now from a tag that was placed on the article three months ago. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heya DoctorKubla. Just giving you a heads up, looks like someone re-added content to The Handmaid's Tale that resembles what you deleted over a few edits in May 2015, due to unsourced content and essay-like material.

I'm not great at evaluating that sort of content issue, so I can't really tell if the newly-added content is worth keeping. Since you've done this before on the very same article, would you mind taking a look? This is the section in question.

Thank you very much! Mechordeus (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks mostly alright to me. The relevance of the long quote about the treatment of women during the Reagan administration isn't really explained – I assume it is relevant, because it comes from an article about the novel, but this could be made clearer, and the quote should probably be trimmed or omitted. Other than that, I don't see any problems that a bit of copyediting won't solve. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you were redirecting the "Month Year" pages to "Year#Month", you forgot to do this to June 2006. I have now done it with this edit. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	YAYAYAYAYAYAYAAAY MaGalPol (talk) 13:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoctorKubla! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Freedom of the City recipients 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/List of Freedom of the City recipients 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. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you marked yourself as a member of WikiProject Wikify and you are currently listed as active. I was wondering if you would be able to assist with our current backlog reduction plan. While traditional drives are more structured month-long sprints by WikiProject Wikify members, there is currently lacking activity within the project and in order to significantly reduce the incredible backlog, members are encouraged to review all articles marked with the Underlinked Template Message - {{underlinked}} - a list of which can be found here - to analyze the worthiness of the template message on the given article. Articles that have nothing to link or are have had wikilinks sufficiently added should have the template removed to clear the backlog and make it easier for editors to find articles in genuine need of wikification. This can be done by any editor; however, all editors should consider joining if they haven't done so already. Thank you!

The Novac (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating List of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Nice work, very comprehensive list!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

Hughesdarren (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of top United States patent recipients, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of top United States patent recipients until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Céphas Bansah, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Céphas Bansah until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]