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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Template:Infobox Disease/doc worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you.. Previous view has been to keep Template:Infobox Disease small and not add such clinical summary points, but feel free to re-raise this at Template talk:Infobox Disease. David Ruben ^Talk 20:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, talk about a template should be on talk page of the template, not that of the subpage used for creating the documenation. I have therefore moved your thread from Template talk:Infobox Disease/doc to Template talk:Infobox Disease where other interested editors will see. David Ruben ^Talk 20:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following the deletion proposal for the article you created and have edited many times, Intown Suites. I disagree with deleting the article, and I wonder why someone would suggest that. But I do see that the article has neutrality problems. Perhaps you stayed at an Intown Suites one time and really hated it, so you wanted to use Wikipedia to let other people know about that. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. There should be more than one person contributing to this article, and then it would be more neutral. I have stayed at several Intown Suites locations before, and had positive experiences. I will not write about them on Wikipedia, but given that, I may be able to help balance the article. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:AmBestVal.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tatterfly. I checked out the article on Intown Suites and removed the uncited, unfair criticisms. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a couple of additions you made to this article; the piece based on a PRWeb press release has been removed, as press releases are not considered a good reliable source, and the Google Street View reference appeared to be a case of original research. The fact that police cars can be seen in a parking lot doesn't really seem relevant to me; I see police cars down the block from me all the time, for example, but there's no criminal intent there - they're just grabbing a coffee. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tatterfly - please read WP:RS if you haven't already - basically, you can't just add facts that you find somewhere on the web (the Google image) or personal statements (the prweb posting; I had no idea that individuals could actual get them to post things, but obviously this happens).

More importantly, Wikipedia uses the concept of verifiability (see WP:V to decide what's important enough to go into articles. Among other things, if everyone follows that rule, there won't as much arguing over what is "fair" and what is "not fair" content, because we (as editors) let the media decide what is important. That may seem wrong - what happened to truth? - but that is how we do things here at Wikipedia; you options are to go along with the rules, or do your posting at the thousands of websites that are less picky. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:CRITICISM, to help you understand other reasons why Wikipedia takes this so seriously ... richi (talk)

Tatterfly,

Please can you discuss page moves before doing them. You moved seizure types to medical seizure and rewrote the lead. There's no such thing as a "medical seizure" and you won't find the term in a medical dictionary. That article was written as a list of epileptic seizure types, the study of which is a huge area and could easily fill a long article. There are only two important seizure articles: Non-epileptic seizures (I see someone has removed the plural -- which is wrong as it is a plural term), of which (Psychogenic non-epileptic seizures are one type. The second is epileptic seizure, of which seizure types was a daughter article.

Let's discuss this before doing any more changes. I think we may need the help of an admin to move some things back if required.

Colin°^Talk 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that medical seizure may work better as seizure (medicine), which currently redirects to it. That is something an administrator would have to help with. Otherwise, I feel that the setup I changed it to makes it easier to find any term pertaining to the word "seizure." Tatterfly (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tatterfly, I think Fvasconcellos and I have come up with a solution over on my talk page. I've also asked for opinion over at WT:MED. I do appreciate your efforts to improve this area, which is neglected. As Fvasconcellos pointed out, we have guidance on disambiguation and discussing these things helps to pick the best solution of many. Colin°^Talk 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tatterfly! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Tatterfly,

Please stop changing links from seizure to seizure (medicine). 99.9% of such links should go to the article on epileptic seizures, not to an article on (epileptic) seizure types that you have unilaterally modified with a more general lead section. See the latest discussion on my talk page. We should endeavour to name articles based on a simple unambiguous name that is easy and natural to link to. "seizure (medicine)" doesn't fit that rule and for such an important topic, that isn't acceptable. Most of your changes are likely to be reverted. Colin°^Talk 11:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very poor form to undo a non-vandalism edit without leaving a reasonable edit summary, as you did on sphygmomanometer. I had taken the time to explain why I didn't think {{Health care}} was the right template for that page. Even if I was completely wrong, you could have told me so politely.

In general, I have the feeling {{Health care}} is much too broad. It tries to cover absolutely everything that happens in hospitals. If it were to get populated with all articles under its scope it would burst at the seams. I think there might well be reasons to start a separate template for medical equipment, which could then also include ophthalmoscope, otoscope, cardiotocograph, pulse oxymeter and other devices that are used at the bedside. JFW | T@lk 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the template may grow one day. If so, we will deal with it then, and consider possibly splitting it. But for now, it is small, and as long as it is small, there is no need to take any action. Tatterfly (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Foods and beverages with health benefits, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you definition of the condition is correct. However, you or I can't apply that definition to Kennedy ourselves -- that's original research. Wait for a published diagnosis. Cheers. PhGustaf (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Wal-Mart (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Jon513 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your message on my talk page, I'll just let Jon513's speedy delete tag speak for itself. No disambiguation is needed for Wal-Mart, as those are not articles needing disambiguation, but rather related "see also" items more appropriate for such a section in an article itself. Disambiguation pages are only used when there are two or more articles that share the same name (such as Phoenix, Arizona or Phoenix (mythology)). Dr. Cash (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This disambig page I created was just that. For example, it disambiguated Wal-Mart with Walmart (neologism), better known as "Walmarting," just as you described in the example above. I am unfamiliar wiht a disussion from the past, but according to WP:D, it seems to me this perfectly fits the critria. Tatterfly (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the deleted article and the AFD, and I'm forced to disagree with you. The arguments raised in the AFD apply every bit as much to your version of the page as to the one that was deleted. You are free to raise the matter at deletion review if you continue to disagree with my decision; I will take no offense if you decide to do so. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speedily-deleted articles are not normally undeleted on request (unlike articles proposed for deletion, which are). I can certainly provide you with a copy of the deleted page if you'd like, but if you want it back in mainspace you'll have to go through deletion review; that's the proper venue for contesting a speedy deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Logo intown suites.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —LedgendGamer 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it seems a little presumptuous to label his death as from lupus when we are still waiting for the autopsy report. unless, of course, you are the LA Coroner? Rodhullandemu 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tatterfly. I got your note on my talk page about the new discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 15#Wal-Mart (disambiguation). I had already made a comment at the new discussion, but thanks for the heads up.

Unfortunately, however, it appears that you selectively notified only those editors who voiced an opinion to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation) (3rd nomination). Could you please immediately let all of the remaining participants in that discussion know as well? Otherwise, you run afoul of the strict prohibitions at WP:Canvassing#Votestacking. Thanks very much. — Satori Son 13:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for complying with the above request. I noticed there are still a few participants in that discussion that have not yet been notified. Please ensure that User:CastAStone, user:youngamerican, User:Derek.cashman and User:TenPoundHammer are also given notifications as they participated in the discussion. Thank you, Shereth 19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Push it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.104.102 (talk) 00:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The orginal pill box page was a disambig page that gave a good definitions to all uses of the term. No offense but I think you are making a mess of what was a good balance organization of articles. Beach drifter (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still trying to figure out which works best. Currently, I am in the process of writing an article on pill boxes as pictured in the new article. I am also confused as I am looking through sources, there may be multiple meanings for the term "pillbox" referring to medication. Tatterfly (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people would agree that when typing pillbox or pill box into the search window it needs to go to the disambig page, not to pill container. Beach drifter (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will go ahead and fix it. In fact, I have found multiple items called "pillboxes" when searching for sources, so much that I may create articles on the others too. Tatterfly (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave as Pillbox (disambiguation) --palmiped |  Talk  23:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be one of two ways:

1. Pillbox redirects to another article (in this case Pill organizer) and all other uses are found on Pillbox (disambiguation)
2. The disambiguation page is titled simply as "Pillbox" with all applicable articles listed

From discussion with a few others, it seemed that #2 was more desired. Tatterfly (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You had recently reverted a merge of Safety cap (medicine) into Child-resistant packaging with no explanation on the Talk page. This merge proposal was posted on 3 Nov and, after no interest by any editors, accomplished on 9 Nov. If you oppose this merger please provide your justification for keeping two articles on the same subject. Thank you. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts to clean up the Holiday page and create a disambiguation page. Now, what do you propose should be done with the 800 or so other articles that contain links to holiday? In particular, what do you propose that {{Holiday-stub}} should link to? I can't figure out what specific type of holiday a "holiday stub" might relate to. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to work on that in the coming week. I just cannot do it all on a single day, since it is a major effort. There are also a number of changes I am yet to make to the articles to which this has been split. Tatterfly (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tatterfly, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Vacation - a page you tagged - because: G6: Based on recent reverts, I don't believe this move is non-controversial. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Work aversion disorder, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work aversion disorder (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Gigs (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed that you "declined" my speedy deletion tag for Pasta, Aus. This is just a note to let you know that I have prodded the article as I consider it to be a hoax. Multiple geographic name searches (which I conducted before the CSD nomination) confirm there is no such place as "Pasta" in Queensland, Australia. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this - can't believe I did that! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for your work attempting to fight spam Tatterfly (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you moved Policy to Policy (principle) and then created a disambiguation page at the old title, did you consider what to do with the hundreds of other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Policy"? WP:FIXDABLINKS suggests that you should fix them so each link points to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much aware of it and planning to work on it little by little in the coming days. It is likely that many of them already were pointing in the wrong direction. The article already had become an incoherent mess. It may take a while, but with time and effort, it can be fixed. I have done it in other similar situations before. Tatterfly (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. role^player 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you moved Hoyer lift to Sling lift after a merge proposal. There is now a new proposal at Talk:Sling_lift#Merge_proposal:_Patient_lift_and_Sling_lift which is effectively the same issue again. I closed off the previous proposal as best I could for clarity. Please can you visit the new section and comment if you wish? -- Mirokado (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bathrooms has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Scott Mac 22:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit unfair to suggest JHunterJ discuss items first when we have been bringing up similar issues on the talk page without any responses from you. . . --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with DON as a separate article (none of the others do). Most of the information on that page is specific to a SNF. I am OK with leaving it as a separate article, but I am going to clean it up and add back some of the information I added. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 22:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I ended up moving the DON article to Director of nursing (long term care facility) since that is what the article dealt with. Director of nursing is now a disambiguation page. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of sourced information about DONs, the number of headings in the article, and the potential for more information, I feel it should surely be a separate article. I also think that "charge nurse" could one day be a separate article. What I would like to see added to the DON article is information about the position in countries other than the USA. Most of the information I have found about nursing altogether is very USA-centric.

I am questioning whether it is worth disambiguating the position for LTC and otheruses, given there is no other single article yet, but there is more time to figure that out. Tatterfly (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 16:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment at WT:Disambiguations are cheap. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Report (nursing) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced. Tagged for 2+ years, and still no references.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I've done some editing on High maltose corn syrup, so I thought I'd alert you so that you can see what I've done. I'll watch Talk:High maltose corn syrup for comments. --Slashme (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Tatterfly! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Bathroom emergency pullstring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senior center (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) 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tatterfly. You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Work aversion 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/Work aversion (4th nomination) 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. Gigs (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Gigs (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BZjump.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your upload of File:AmBestVal.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:BackZipperDress.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disorders causing seizures, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BackZipperSkirt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Deadstar (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Job skirt 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/Job skirt 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. Mabalu (talk) 16:09, 20 October 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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney (disambiguation), a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Kidney (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Kidney (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kidney (disambiguation) 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/Kidney (disambiguation) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of drug interactions 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 drug interactions 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. Natureium (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Double back zipper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tweeterstore.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:SundressonMannequin.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

low quality file, no foreseeable encyclopedic use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No indication of notability, only routine business coverage regarding acquisitions and personnel changes. Google News shows nothing better, only small crimes NurseFinders nurses are accused of.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PatientFirstLogo.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) 03:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:AmBestVal.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:LongJeanSkirt.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HersheysSymphony.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) 17:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epilepsy driving laws US has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]