Welcome!

Hello, Masaruemoto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem with the article appeared to be that it was retribution masquerading as a biography. I think that that has been addressed through the use of ordinary editing tools. Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed. Uncle G 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the Bruno Maddox page move for me. Do you know if there would be a way to possible have billdeancarter blocked or at least censured for his actions Black Harry 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, last one is gone. Thanks for doing the hard work of tracking and tagging! --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for categorizing the movie. In the future, when you categorize an article, remove the "uncategorized" tag since it is no longer necessary. Thanks, Cathy 172.131.193.244 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information is not copyrighted per se, although there is dispute about whether reproducing lists counts as reproducing copyrighted content. However, I have removed the speedy tag from this article because if there is a copyvio, the worst we should do is to stub the article - there is sufficient content for a stub. As I am not familiar with the article, I hope you will sort out the copyright issue before taking further action - but the article definitely is not an outright copyvio and thus cannot be deleted. Johnleemk | Talk 18:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have made this requested move. As you mentioned a possible move back, I have not corrected the resulting double-redirects, as they would disappear when a move back is made. Anthony Appleyard 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the Tim Burton's Batman universe article. I've now nominated it for deletion too.[[[1]] Doczilla 02:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC) Oh, the same editor also created Hanna-Barbera's Batman universe. Jeepers. Doczilla 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting.Noroton 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the relevant guideline (WP:SUBCAT) is that duplication of having the article in a category and subcategory is appropriate here. See the Topic article rule, in particular.

If you disagree, let me know, but I think it was correct to restore the category. I think you were correct to remove it from the season specific articles, though. -Chunky Rice 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me with a link to the AFD for this article? Thanks! - Philippe | Talk 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Masaruemoto. Thanks for removing the incorrectly used disambiguations, but there's something you should keep in mind when doing that: even if a link isn't needed for disambiguation, sometimes it's useful to retain the link in a "see also" section. For example, you recently removed several links to The Wizard of Oz (adaptations) from pages of those adaptations. You were mostly right that the link was not appropriate in a disambiguation hatnote (although I had to restore a hatnote to The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), because The Wizard of Oz (film) redirects there, and there are other films by that title). However, it's reasonable to think that a reader reading about The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1910 film) or The Wizard of Oz (TV series) might also be interested in other adaptations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, so in cases like that it's often a good idea to move the link from the hatnote to a ==See also== section, rather than removing it altogether. I've done that for the Oz pages you amended, but wanted to let you know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Junior (animation), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Junior (animation) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Junior (animation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this [2] reversion, made without any attempt at discussion? If not, I will be changing it back. Thanks. 70.89.1.145 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Time On Earth (Hugo album), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back to read the AfD debate, and I thought indeed it was being used as a spam target until you brought up the year and the target of his appeals. Good call on this one, I would hate to see some kid reeled in by that creep because he tried to manipulate what WP was all about. It was a pretty dumb attempt at solicitation though, since he left his email, a username and posted his appeal to a page that's editable. Certainly I'll be on the watch if this racket is repeated in the future. Nate 05:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment of yours, please note that the deletion policy (specifically WP:DEL#REASON) lists the following: "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed." Therefore, lack of sources is an excellent reason for deleting an article. Regards, Agüeybaná 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has always been some doubt whether this article's content is considered fancruft-- but your kind of action-- ie moving its content to List of characters in Case Closed and redirecting it there without any kind of discussion-- is not appropriate in my opinion, especially your choice of the article to merge. I consider nominating it to WP:DELETE and let editors decide its fate would be a more appropriate way.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I honestly hadn't even noticed that before, and I was the one who originally created the article in the first place. Oh wells. King Zeal 21:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note your movement of the famous trains list to historical trains on the grounds that it is less subjective. I'm not sure that's right, but I think use of the word historical (that is, belonging to the past, not the present) is incorrect. Many of these trains still run and indeed, like Eurostar, are recent additions. I agree we can argue about whether a particular train is famous or not, so perhaps notable is a more appropriate if less impressive title. Personally I'd be happier with famous. What do you think? Nsorelli 09:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supporters of PETA. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were involved in the original AFD discussion on this article, which was eventually deleted. You may wish to comment on the 2nd nomination for the recreated article. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2008 (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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tom and Jerry disambiguation. Since you had some involvement with the Tom and Jerry disambiguation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]