Hello Ridernyc. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Flagship (band), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is also the case for Weedon foundation--the evidence shows it is of some importance, though the article can be deleted, and will be, for being highly promotional.

PGS entertainment just the same: it' indicates importance through market share & distribution of important brands. It's promotional and needs references , but it might be fixable

I think the recent flood of promotional articles has led you to be a little careless in tagging. (It has the same effect on me also, if I don't watch myself--I've had some of my speedies declined in the last few weeks, which formerly never used to happen--we all need to check each other from time to time). Remember that passing speedy a7 is much less than passing WP:N--any good faith plausible indication is sufficient. And it confuses newcomers to give the wrong deletion reason: for a highly promotional article use g11; for an article that is both no indication of importance & highly promotional, it helps to use both tags--it makes it much simpler to explain things to the author of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I've always handled it the opposite way for some reason. Ridernyc (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you want to focus attention on the most important problem, but the two are often complementary: promotional has no clear boundary line, while what's necessary to pass A7 is very low. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I get what you are saying. Ridernyc (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions. SwisterTwister talk 19:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out you are not an administrator which I was starting to believe - stop acting like one & stop stalking me.I could quite easily take retalitory action, but as I not that type of person I wouldn't resort to that.Don't take this as a threat or harassment, just asking you to back off politely--Scratchy7929 20:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

once you stop adding and editing genres without consensus or even an attempt at discussion. I will stop. Read WP:GENREWARRIOR. Ridernyc (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for severely trimming the list, something I've thought about doing myself for some time. What do you think about speedy deletion for The Tallyman's Dark Omnibus the article on which seems awfully like an advertisement? Paul S (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated. Also it's pretty easy cleaning up Dark Caberet, simply make the inclusion criteria no red links. It's pretty much the only way to maintain lists of musical artists like that. Ridernyc (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ridernyc. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Tallyman's Dark Omnibus, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to performances. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the speedy deletion after you added it? The band it significant as the Grammy nomination indicates. It will be filled in with more info when I or others add to it. Michael miceli (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ridernyc. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Organon clothing, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Wrong criteria. Should have been deleted under A7 (company). Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 16:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This pair of articles weren't a no context speedy, since it was possible to tell what the articles were about. They were about this person's economic theories. But they were simply promotion for them, and I deleted them as G11. Please use the right reason to avoid confusing the people who submit articles.

In order to avoid drifting from the standard, I reread WP:CSD every once in a while. Even with long experience, and even though I primarily deal with deletions these days, I've found it necessary. Considering previous comments by others, it might be helpful if you did so too. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but you and the other admins needs to get together on this because when I follow your advice I get warnings from other admins, a bit tired of it. If you would like I could just stop patrolling and leave the ever growing backlog. Ridernyc (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the Roger Brooks article for deletion about a week ago and it was relisted for debate here Roger Brooks Deletion Discussion. Would you please reread the full article as well as list why you believe every reference in the article is peripheral, and then weigh in once again so that the discussion can move forward? Thanks. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why I have already stated the coverage in sources is of the vents not of the subject of the article. If inclusionist want to calim that meets the GNG fine, that's why we have AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering what specific events you are talking about, as only the first paragraph appears to fall into the criteria you are talking about. Care to specify the particular references so that I can learn from what you have a problem with? Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about to edits to The Prodigy, i was only the changing the names electropunk and synthrock to more correct names: synthpunk and electronic rock, as the articles about the genres aren't named electropunk and synthrock

what about to edits to Industrial music, there was written at stylistic origins krautrock twice, so i deleted one of them.

what about to edits to Rock music, i decided to add to devirative genres - ambient, industrial and space music, because of mentioned genres of stylistic origins section of the genres.

what about to edits to Warrior's Dance, there's at genres section rave written, cause it was linked to rave that isn't music genre, but rather a style of party, so i decide to link it to rave music, the music that The Prodigy play it

i wanted to helpful, i didn't want to be a vandal or troll. yes i did it for good faith, but it doesn't mean that i must be hated. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to check improvements made to the Leonora Moore article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per your talk page comments, I was able to find a 26-year-old book where Kenny Ortega responded to Squier's complaints about the video and added that to the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your insights are quite apreciated. I have changed my opinion at the AFd and now feel we have a suitable place where the latest effort by Hines might be spoken of in context. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a cheeseburger. I hope you're not a vegetarian, in this case. Cheeseburgers are simply my favourite food. :) Bill Bill G. Evans (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see we had the same thought at the same moment on this article! I would suggest that we see what the reviewing admin says about my CSD nom and if it is turned down then please do proceed with your AfD. The CSD should be reviewed within a few hours I would hope! - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. Also considering a checkuser here. Ridernyc (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea - the IP looks very much like a sock by behaviour. Anyone can remove a PROD tag, even the original author, not so for the CSD tag. If the IP removes the CSD tag before it is reviewed you could go the checkuser route or just reopen the AfD and deal with it that way. - Ahunt (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen the CSD was declined and so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PiBang Linux is live again. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure on what basis you call naik mid day meal as a SPAM entry? please can you explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.75.84.106 (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, let's talk about how we can improve the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill G. Evans (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I don't understand, I did something wrong ? If this is about Drone metal in other topics of the Experimental metal article, the relation is sourced in the Drone metal article. Why did you put it as vandalism ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otávio Augusto Silva (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained to you two previous times on your talk page not to edit genres without first obtaining consensus. You continue to make edits to info boxes yet have never once made one edit to an articles talk page to discuss your edits. The edits you undid to witchhouse have long established consensus on the talk page, yet you reverted them. Your continued refusal to discuss changes made to genres without first discussing your changes in my eyes makes your further edits to genres vandalism. You have been well warned on this issue. Any further edits to genres without prior discussion will be reverted and warnings issued. Ridernyc (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry for all the trouble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otávio Augusto Silva (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I've found that you're marking the pages that I created for deletion. I'm simply requesting you to stop this. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are creating inappropriate pages. I recommend you use Articles For Creation from now on before creating any further articles. You seem to have a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy. Ridernyc (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise! But I only create articles when I find some website sources. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you still have not provided a single independent reliable source for a single article. I don't think you have any clue how to meet the notability guidelines. I have no desire to continue talking to you outside of AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking) With respect, can you just tone it down a bit? If a user does not understand Wikipedia policy, you need to explain it to them in a calm and civil manner, commenting on exactly where the content fails policies, and why. Stating "you don't understand policy" and refusing discussion on your talk page is almost certain to fail. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No not really interested he attacks at every turn. Has sent me to AIV, has told me repeatedly his articles are sourced properly. He shows no interest in actually learning or understanding policy. You are welcome to try, but all I get are attacks and smoke screens from him. I have little tolerance for paid editors. Ridernyc (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say with replies like "I don't think you have any clue" that he has dished out as good as he's got, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to go through the articles and provide sourcing, or are we going to continue defending someone who gets paid $4 a pop to create Wikipedia articles on non-notable people from provided material. Oh wait he's not getting paid, it's only "tips". Lets face it he seems to be fully aware his action are frowned upon otherwise he would not be going out of his way to use wording like "I only recieve small tips." You are more then welcome to try adopting him, I on the other hand am more interested in having notability established and everything else is a distraction. Meanwhile lets get back to the massive pile of work this person has created for use so they could make $4 an article. Ridernyc (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I requested you and secondly I thanked you for the advise. I was in collage and that is the reason for not updating. If the article doesn't meet the wikipedia policy then admins will delete it and thanks for reviewing my articles. Regards, NickAang (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also contributed and created articles not for my profit. I just want helps from a neutral editor as you've already received warnings from other editors. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep denying stuff you say even when it is right there for all to see. "But I only create articles when I find some website sources." Two minutes ago I was lying and you never created articles for profit, now you have created articles for. I say you do not understand sourcing get help, you say "I understand sourcing" and ignore me. Again tired of the distractions, tired of the attacks from you, really tired of things like being reported to AIV and RPP. Provide sources. If you don't know how to properly source get help. Do not create articles until you understand how notability and sourcing work. Stop going after me, prove me wrong by providing sources that establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry if my words hurt you but I found you more concern about me getting paid for a few articles rather than the article topics. You have tagged 5 articles and started posting that almost all of my articles are created for promotional purposes and I was paid for them. I may be wrong in choosing sources but please don't accuse me of misusing wikipedia for my own monetary profit. That hurts me. Regards, NickAang (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done talking to you, be advised that if you care you should start sourcing your other articles that have not been brought to AFD, because with one or two exceptions I plan on taking the rest of them through the process. Again source your articles and stop all the other non-sense. Ridernyc (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ridernyc. You have new messages at Nickaang's talk page.
Message added 09:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

NickAang (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please view the article's "view history" subpage to see who exactly made what changes and if they justified them with an edit summary for example. I made a point of citing the genre for the infobox in The Fragile (Nine Inch Nails album) with my edit on "04:46, 27 January 2013‎". Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not where you discuss changes. If you want a certain genre start a conversation on the talk page. Ridernyc (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a few questions about some of your recent edits.

• You repeatedly removed sourced edits, such as this, saying that there was previous consensus; do you think new reviews (for albums that weren't in existence when said consensus was established) indicate that perhaps previous consensus is outdated?
• Do you think reviews that refer to an album as a certain genre aren't good enough to support changing that album's genre to reflect that the reviews say? ([1])
• Why repeatedly revert others for vandalism if they're providing rationale and aren't vandalizing? (One, two, three)

I'm assuming good faith and that you didn't intend to be disruptive with those edits, so I was wondering if you'd like to offer rationale for making them. Regards, m.o.p 03:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is you need to be bold. There is a group of editors working through these articles that totally refuse to take part in consensus building they all communicate through edit summaries and simply keep changing things back and forth. They think as long as they have a source that it somehow trumps discussion. To see this take a look at Talk:The_Fragile_(Nine_Inch_Nails_album)#Genres where once they were forced to the talk page they now make the claim that as long as they have a reference they do not need to take part in consensus building. They refuse to have discussion then when fores they refuse to acknowledge that they need consensus. You can see that right in the middle of consensus building, even though consensus is against them, they simply start the war all over again claiming they do not need consensus and can ignore it. The only way to deal with it is to be bold and keep escalating though the mitigation process. I always make it clear that we need to discuss the changes, in many cases I do not even push my changes. In fact the changes to genres I made to the Fragile this morning listed genres that I do not agree with but I follow consensus. Genres are hard, you can literally source every band and album to dozens of genres, that's why when dealing with genres there is such a strong emphasis on consensus building. If there is a group of editors who feel they can ignore consensus how do we deal with that. I can't see anyway that won't be ugly. Ridernyc (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked to shows that at least two other editors disagree with you, and are arguing their points; this is how consensus is formed. But then you say things like this, leading me to believe that you're putting your opinion ahead of what published sources are saying.

I also don't see any refusal to discuss from other editors; if anything, you yourself say "Both of you can keep saying that but it plane and simply is not true. So as I said moving on." - I don't think that's quite an affirmation of your desire to continue building consensus. I appreciate that you want to abide by consensus, but sometimes consensus is outdated, and sometimes it's not applicable (in the case of reliable sourcing) - it's on you to realize that.

As I said above, I'm assuming good faith here, but I'm a bit concerned; you've repeatedly called other people vandals despite their edits not being vandalism, you've dodged discussion with other editors when they bring up things like sourcing, and you've gone to WP:RFPP for protection on pages that you have active disputes on.

If you feel genres are hard, or if you believe our reliable sourcing policy is misguided, you're free to abstain from editing articles like this. But, to be blunt, I'm seeing a trend of combative behaviour between yourself and other editors, and you're not always in the right.

This is just an impartial comment, a word between friends. As you can probably tell by my username, I'm a metalhead. Sometimes I'll look at a band's genre and scratch my head as to why that's what others think. But my personal opinions, just like yours, don't have any encyclopaedic weight. Please try to be a bit more mindful of established policies going forward; I wouldn't like to have to come back in an administrative role.

Cheers, m.o.p 03:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would you respond when some who is not taking part in disucussion say they can totally ignore the discussion because they have a source then reverts edits to remove the only genres that anyone agrees to across two talk pages? Have you seen that Dan is up to 4 reverts on the same content reverting edits fromtwo different editors and has left a malicious warning on another editors talk page. [2]. Seriously you are barking up the wrong tree here. Ridernyc (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you - if I'm barking up a tree, it's because I have reason. From what I can tell, the editor you're referring to has stuck to sources and is active on the talk pages of the articles he's worked on; from where I'm standing, I don't see anything wrong (aside from a minor incivil remark, which I will deal with separately). I'm also not quite sure how that warning is in any way malicious - it's a widely-used warning template, similar to ones you've used. m.o.p 04:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the editor is involved in a current discussion on consensus and restored the what as far the discussion is concerned and as far as long standing consensus is concerned the genres as should be listed. They were only changed to art rock this morning. Do we really need to provide sources that say NIN is Industrial Rock? Because that's one of the genres he keeps removing. It's not just that he sourcing it as art rock, he is also removing the other genres that are agreed upon almost universally across all NIN articles, and have been in place since 2007. Again I'm not even arguing for genres I agree with, I'm arguing for genres that have an established consensus across the articles. Also I'd have to dig it up but I can swear this Art Rock thing has come up before and is in at least one pages archives somewhere. Ridernyc (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then dig it up. Find sources that say the album in question is industrial. Just don't fight the addition of reliable sources. m.o.p 04:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what should we do ignore the fact that he is making obvious contentious edits by removing 4 other agreed upon genres? This is ridiculous. Ridernyc (talk) 04:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He provided rationale and sourcing for that album's genre. If you disagree, find sources that say otherwise. m.o.p 04:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Master_of_puppets hey look thrash metal is not sourced, I have a source that calls it pop rock right here [3]. Let me go and change it. see how absurd your stance is. Ridernyc (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't 'my' stance. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. m.o.p 04:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really the stance of /rs is source trump consensus? If that was the case every musical related article would have 20 genres listed. You are taking your argument to ridiculous extremes. You are also ignoring the way genres are handled on the project, There are hundreds of these edits every day maintaining genres. Go ahead justify my proposal for the Master of Puppets article. I have a source that says they are pop rock, should I remove the obviously more appropriate genre and change it. Then say "nananana I can't hear you I have a source" when you complain. Your stance is silly. If we allowed sources to trump consensus the project would be doomed. Ridernyc (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And when 100 editors rush to issue me the genre warning template I hope you start a "Genres and you" conversation on every one of the pages. Ridernyc (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
I guess there has been a confusion (or maybe an edit war) over the genres of The Fragile. I'd like to say that I find it completely ridiculous and misleading to label it solely as art rock (which somewhat seems to fail WP:COMMON, despite not being a policy). Nevertheless, I think I'd be better for us to find sources and seek a compromise through these. As I know, consensus is only necessary when the edit is disputed (which definitely suits to this article's situation). As the sourced info can be discussed (with an example being Radiohead's OK Computer; it was labeled as art rock in a review and this classification was discussed properly and lenghtly. It resulted with its removal.) I believe we should try to take a similar action to this. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ridernyc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ridernyc (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) You don't own articles. B) You didn't bother to actually link to any articles in your snide response. C) If you have a doubt to a source, you should discuss it on the talk page of the article, not some IP page. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really looks like you have an axe to grind on this topic. You apparently don't like fictional places, items, characters, ect... and your comments reflect that in AfD you have participated in or created. Clearly you feel these sort of articles and lists are unencyclopedic. While I will agree that many of these articles need work, nominating numerous articles for AfD is leaping to conclusions and creates the appearance that you are trying to make a point. This sort of tendentious is disruptive to the editing process, see WP:TE and WP:DE. Please flag articles about fictional elements that need references or have questionable notability. Please make comments in the article's talk page that you question the notability or references of the article. In the article talk page, make suggestions on how the article can be improved using good faith that the article is notable before deciding otherwise. Please join the groups that have oversight over the articles to make suggestions for article improvements, mergers, ect... Please stop the negative behavior of requesting deletion for anything you find to be not notable. It shows impatience, lack of understanding, and is not very considerate of your fellow editors. Also, please be more civil WP:CIV and assume good faith in your fellow editors. It is really better to be someone who adds and contributes to articles rather than someone who derides and attacks. Thank you. 42of8 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this maybe of interest to you I since you have participated in AFD's by myself. I believe the likes of Stinkor and Moss Man should be split if you disagree or agree I have started a discussion at Talk:List of Masters of the Universe characters. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ridernyc. I didn't think this one was A7 speedy material. Regards, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to participate in the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Signature move sourcing. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use WP:BEFORE? I quickly found two substantial articles dealing directly and in detail with this company... Variety and Pasadena Independent. Not exactly one-liners or blurbs. Later on I'll look for more, but feel WP:CORP is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:34, 18 April 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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ridernyc. 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]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ridernyc. 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 Ridernyc! 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 23:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article The River of Crime (Episodes 1–5) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:GNG. I searched for independent and reliable secondary sources and found nothing. Given that the podcast hasn't been live for about 15 years I think it's fair to say that it is unlikely to receive further coverage.

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. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The residents title limbo cover.jpg. 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) 17:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]