User talk:Altermike

Hello, Altermike! 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! 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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, WestStart-CALSTART, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from {{{url}}}. As a copyright violation, WestStart-CALSTART appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. WestStart-CALSTART has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:WestStart-CALSTART and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:WestStart-CALSTART with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:WestStart-CALSTART.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One can use references from the own organization goals. What about if I would imagine other goals ?. Really it is not copyvio, but fidelity to the organization goals and words (change a word and the goal can be different). --Altermike 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text copied from other websites is not permitted at Wikipedia without permission from the author. Also,

    

    Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I copy a law text in a website ?. I have changed all the text. This is copyhysteria. --Altermike 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Funny redirect, but I think your analogy is flawed. Laws have to be taken literally
        • No necessarily . They can be taken literally
      • and word for word because people's conduct and rights are governed by them. An organization's goals are almost always susceptable to paraphrasing
        • they are the organization laws. Paraphrasing can direct to adulteration of goals (although unintentional).
      • and nobody's going to jail because of it. Also, I don't believe it is necessary to cite an organization's mission statement verbatim, copying the organization's formatting, in order to create an encyclopedic article about the organization. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adulteration (paraphrasing) is a bad done thing and can direct the reader to imagine a very different goals and mission than real one. In any case, the user can copy and comment them, if necessary (this is more honest, because the reader can clearly distinguish). --Altermike 07:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well maybe it would be more prudent then to give the reader a general flavor of what the organization does and provide an inline citation with a link to the actual goals on the organization's website. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • For this I include the programs Carlstat executes and it was deleted (I created it on my own). The article could say "Carlstat is an environment organization california based with programs on:" Could you give an example of the Carlstart would have, of your own ? (for a positive contribution)--Altermike 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this would be a good start: "WestStart-CALSTART is a public interest group that uses various methods to encourage others to develop non-petroleum-based transportation." --Butseriouslyfolks 18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created . It´s a small (stub) beginning. But can be a great article in the future, open to every body´s contribution. Thanks. --Altermike 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altermike, Thanks for your contributions to telematics.--Nowa 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks to you also.--Altermike 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Direct name means that the color name can be used in Wikipedia without specifying the hex triplet." -- I don't understand your comment, so I thought I'd take it up right away as it sounds as if you might be about to add a new column, which could be a lot of work for you. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be about Wikipedia, so I don't follow what you mean. Notinasnaid 08:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Shades of green in text. It is about HTML and Wikipedia (this is, about the colors in the web). --Altermike 09:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you mean you are going to list the colors which are valid HTML color names (which is probably about half of them)? I don't think Wikipedia should be mentioned, as Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about itself... In fact, I think this area is already well covered in web colors. Notinasnaid 09:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the right name for the article, thanks. But all the web colors are not included (i.e. Chartreuse) and one only can see the effect in the background, but not in the text (for this, see Template:Web color names for shades of green). One could improve the "HTML color names" in the "Web colors" article, to divide hexadecimal into two columns : background and tex. So, the user could see the color efect in the background and in the TEXT. Regards. --Altermike 10:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but chartreuse is not a standard web color. If it is supported by some browsers, the details could be added to Web colors, provided it is sourced and details the specific browsers. Please don't add new colors to the existing tables, as they should be complete listings of what is in the relevant standards. Notinasnaid 11:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, one can add details about non-standard web color in the article.

An of colors in text and background (this is very important for the user, to see the color efect in the text, before use it):

{{HTML color names}}

--Altermike 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a good idea, but I'd recommend proposing it on Talk:Web colors. This is partly because it's going to take a lot of effort, and it's very disappointing to put a lot of effort into something, only to have it reverted because other editors don't agree. (I know this from experience).

By the way, is "direct name" a standard term? Notinasnaid 11:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a standard term. I am going to use the name informed by you (html color name). Thank you a lot. --Altermike 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that editors should not add links to project pages for standard articles (that is, don't add links to Wikipedia: pages to articles). See the Maanual of Style for more info. Mindmatrix 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Consider include the link in the page, only if convenient. Regards. --Altermike 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please only creat disambig pages for articles that exist. You are making unnecessary pages. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Thanks. --Altermike 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the redirect PESWiki for deletion. PrimeHunter 14:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn´t it about free energy ? --Altermike 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on cleaning up the Ethanol fuel article. Its in bad shape and a lot of unsourced info gets added while sourced info gets deleted because people don't like its POV. Thanks for adding constructively! --Chuck Sirloin 14:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that way the article can be usefull for biobutanol article also. Regards. --Altermike 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the aims of your Logo Wikia- but see you have displayed a lot of the material I posted on Wikipedia-- I take it as a real compliment-- Thanks.

That´s for sure. You can participate in the Wikia, if you want (released, as Wikipedia unde GFDL free document license).--Altermike 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a lot of work (as yet unpublished) on a definition of a 'standard' for Logo. This is a complex task, as it must first deal with 'boring' matters such as whether ~ (line continuation symbol) is recognised in after a ;comment symbol. But it consensus is being reached.
• Part of my aim is to gather together manuals and lit references of all the 170 versions of Logo-- this is barely started. I want to have this material so that 'we can learn from the past' 'don't reinvent the wheel' and have a solid base of literature when Logo is translated into further languages- OLPC style.

http://ccgi.frindsbury.force9.co.uk/greatlogoatlas/

• • Please use any of the data you find
  • I am not aware of any copyright issues-- so if you find a screen dump or diagram-- use CC attrib 2.5, I sign my attrib Clem Rutter, Rochester,Kent.
• Also of interest may be the Logo Files 600-650

http://www.rutter.uklinux.net/index2.php?Work:Teaching:Worksheet_Library

• • If you have any ideas for extra sheets- do share and I will edit them into the set.
• Your interest seems to be related to the robotic possibilities of Logo which sadly seems limited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you want, you can create and edit the pages in Wikia about the above ideas. Logo Wikia is also your Wikia (one can include specially information about free Logo versions - in a similar way to DOS and FreeDOS- and the use in robotics -as RoboMind ). Regards. --Altermike 11:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for merging Domotics into Home Automation. Your effort is much appreciated! --Eptin 13:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I really thought an unified article is better than two part ones. Thank you also for your support. --Altermike 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed your recent edits to the Microsoft Robotics Studio entry. I don't feel that having a sub-section of "free" equivalents is really within the remit of this entry, indeed it could be thought to fly in the face of Wikipedia:NPOV if the article were to suggest that one product is better than another on the basis of a difference in licensing. I do think that it is entirely appropriate, indeed it makes the entry better, to have a See Also link to the Player Project entry. I also feel that given that I had made an edit to your contribution, and created an entry on the talk page, that before you effectively reverted my change, that this could have been discussed on the appropriate talk page pcr^talk 03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ansewered in the article talk page: it is relevant the good and bad thing of an article topic, for a NPOV. I.e. Esperanto, Biodiesel, Ethanol fuel and so on. One can do it in two ways. Include a criticism section or include a link to other robotics suites (the concurrency it is basic for full NPOV - i.e. see cars topics-). In any case, I think the MSRB is very short and would include more information about it --Altermike. 06:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you'd want to add the Image:Wikia.png logo, but its licensing is fair use, which means it should not be used in templates (showing the image in 70 articles doesn't exactly illustrate its purpose). Another problem is the logo ruins the alignment of pages that use it, e.g. Blade Runner. –Pomte 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we ask Wikia permission to use the Logo in templates that links to Wikia ?. I delete the logo from {{Wikia}} to advoid the problem. --Altermike 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea, but I found pages that might help: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, Wikipedia:Request for copyright assistance. Meanwhile, I'll try to merge {{Wikiapar}} and {{Wikiapar2}} into this template so one can do the job and they're not redundant to each other. –Pomte 17:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediapar2 is used with a different pourpose. It´s easy to use and work. Wikipediapar hasn´t worked for me (see the page where one uses it). --Altermike 17:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What different purpose? Right now {{Wikia}} has the wording "White Wolf Wiki at Wikia". If you want to change it to "Wikia has a wiki about White Wolf: whitewolf" that's okay too. But the wording should be the same everywhere. There's no reason for {{Wikiapar}} and {{Wikiapar2}} to exist that I can see. –Pomte 20:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Wikiapar}} says:

[[Wikia]] has a wiki about {{{1}}}: [[wikia:c:{{{2}}}|''{{{3}}}'']]

And the usage: {{wikiapar|topic|wikia_adress|caption}}

I.e. {{wikiapar|robots and automation|robots|robots}} shows:

robots on robots, an external wiki

And {{wikiapar2}} says:

Wikia has a wiki about {{{1}}}: {{{2}}}

I.e. {{wikiapar2|robots and automation|robots}} shows:

{{wikiapar2|robots and automation|robots}}

And the usage:

{{wikiapar|topic|wikia_address}}.

You spend the caption, when the wikia address (i.e robots) can be used as caption also.

In a similar way, see Wikipedia:Sister projects. --Altermike 10:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no functional difference between them and there's no reason for the link to be formatted externally in {{wikiapar2}}. {{Wikia}} works just fine with the caption and I have reworded it in a similar way to the sister projects although Wikia itself is not a sister project. {{{1}}} being "this topic" is suitable as with the sister projects. –Pomte 00:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said before yes, there is a reason: the link to with Wikiapar doesn´t work. Try it. --robots on robots, an external wiki Altermike 06:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can make Wikiapar work, but there's no point because {{Wikia}} covers it. In the mean time, I have removed fair use images from the template and this user page. –Pomte 17:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of video are you requesting for the curling article? One video that encompasses everything is not practical. Did you see some of the links in the 'External Links' section of the article? There are links to flash animation of nearly every curling shot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by H8jd5 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I can use external links, but one thing free media are better (one could upload to free video store site).One could do a creative commons or GFDL declaration in the video properties page. The ideas is include a short video about the beginning of a set, if possible. --Altermike 08:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning of a set? What are you talking about? I've never heard the word 'set' used in refrence to curling. Whatever you are talking about, how is it going to make the article better? H8jd5 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images say nothing to me. The text is too long (the page is 50 kilobytes long). So, unreadable. And unwatchable also, by an introduction video . --Altermike 19:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Green tuning, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. 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. Cheers, Jonomacdrones _(talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Design. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Thank you. --Ronz 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Broken has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-12 16:38Z

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Player Project, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ronz 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Talk page.

How to link (using an internal link) to the talk page of an article (preferly using {{PAGENAME}}. Thanks in advance. --Altermike 12:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I found your question at Wikipedia talk:Talk page, and moved it here. As it says at the top of that page, that page is for discussing the page “Wikipedia:Talk page” itself, and not for general questions. Questions about how to use Wikipedia should be posted at Wikipedia:Help Desk; you can try there. You may also want to expand a little upon what you're trying to do, as I'm afraid I don't understand your question. To link to a talk page, you just specify the name of the page, like any other, e.g., “[[User talk:DragonHawk]]” for User talk:DragonHawk. Hope this helps. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be a FAQ where one could ask this questions . --Altermike 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a FAQ, in fact, several of them. The master page is at WP:FAQ. There is also Wikipedia:Questions, which explains how and where to ask questions. And, of course, there is the entire Help namespace, which is something like a user manual for the wiki side of Wikipedia. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Altermike 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your edits on this article. I was doing some cleanup and removed the red links to several terms about which I was not sure you intended to create articles (toileting and ambulating). Since they seemed like terms that didn't warrant an article, I took off the wiki brackets. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Calltech 20:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could link to wiktionary definitions. This terms are import for native non-english speakers. Regards.--Altermike 05:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any independent google hits for "baset trailer" -- is there a source for that, please? James S. 11:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places to find baset trailers are the same of the trailer (see makers). This is a DIY trailer + batteries , that one can easily buy and join. There are some places in the web about the concept, but to get one you have to do it yourself, by the moment (in a similar way to some car tunings). Regards.--Altermike 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please see WP:OR. If it doesn't exist, it can't be in the encyclopedia. James S. 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it exists and it is sold. I have one. --Altermike 06:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references added to the article contained the word "baset". I'm not doubting you, and I think it would be great if they became widely and easily available. However, it looks like the name "baset" is a Wikipedia:Neologism. I'm sorry. James S. 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think gen-set is algo a neologism in the same way (see genset trailer). --Altermike 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, Wikipedia adheres strictly to a neutral point of view as well as demanding verifiability. This means that comments like "Toyota has won fans around the world with affordable cars seen as reliable, durable and fuel-efficient" aren't going to survive. The fact that you can see the quote on Reuters doesn't mean it's suitable on WP.

Also, there is a place for everything. Lee Iacocca's comments have nothing to do with Automobile production statistics. Inserting identical text across multiple articles is to invite accusations of soapboxing, propaganda or advocacy. --DeLarge 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s clear Wikipedia is not a stone. So, people has the right to (changing) information. And to know how is the market, without non-neutral deletions. It´s a practice in Wikipedia include a short introduction to an article in a general one and the link to it, to read more. If you feel something can be better in some way, do it, but don´t touch the people´s right to know how something is and how it has changed. --Altermike 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to mark your edits as minor if you are making changes which are not simple spelling, formatting or layout edits. Please see Help:Minor edit. --DeLarge 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have merged this stub with Vehicle Engineering, despite the fact that the only comments were opposed to the merge. Please explain yourself. Greglocock 22:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the merge and the comments appeared after the merging. On the other hand, one must include reason not to merging, not only the reason that there are automotive engineering degrees. And only a few lines article is really a stub. So, if there are more solid reasons to include in the article and the automotive article is expanded, one can re-split it --Altermike 05:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. Comments were left opposing the move at talk:Vehicle Engineering, which was the page you linked to when you added the merge template on March 18, 2007 (wrongly -- see WP:CAPS).

The three dissenting opinions were added at 22:49, March 18, 2007, 04:10, March 19, 2007 and 02:39, April 5, 2007, long before the redirect on 1 May. Since consensus is against the merge, it's being undone until due process is followed. --DeLarge 11:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the link was to Talk:Vehicle_Engineering, as you put. But the problem is not the merging. The problem is the article quality. There is no reference to the difference between both engeneerings. If they are not different (I don´t read anything about the differences in the article ) why maintain them splitted ? ;) . This about career is not a valid argument, that can change from country to country and doesn´t clarify the differences (in Vehicle_engineering this is an stub empty section).--Altermike 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I think you have thoroughly abused the merge process. If you didn't understand the difference between the two why did you not ask the question on the Talk page? I suggest you revert the merge and ask the question properly. And I also suggest you read up on the merge process. So far your contribution looks more like vandalism than useful editing. Greglocock 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in your user page. --Altermike 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on my latest proposal to Talk:Vehicle engineering--Drussel3 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I print it to read and answer as soon as possible (I think a pair of days). If you recieve no answer, it´s because I agree to the proposal . Thank you. --Altermike 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with Category:Battery electric vehicle organizations, please put a {{db-self}} at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough. Od Mishehu 07:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Vertically integrated undertaking with the summary "hodgepodge of two EU (I think) documents... copyright unclear and still doesn't credit the source even if they are public domain, might be plagiarism". If you have any questions let me know. --W.marsh 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do it ?. This article includes definitions that appears in the EU Internal Market in Electricity Directive. So, there is not copyright problem. --Altermike 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still plagiarism, if we take text from somewhere we need to credit that source. Are you sure the EU released this into the public domain though? --W.marsh 20:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s impossible it´s plagiarism, because law are not original work (in any case is the work of us all, theorically represented in the parliament). If you cannot copy an USA Act, you cannot copy an EU Directive. In any case, Directives are copied in Member States´ Acts (because of this, they are Directives). For sure, I can copy and paste how many times I want the Acts, including the intelectual property Act ;) --Altermike 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that didn't really make any sense. A derivative work of a copyrighted work must be approved by the copyright holder. Wikipedia can't accept stuff under those terms. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. Again, even if you can show they're public domain, to use the text you still need to mention where it's coming from. If you just want to quote them, that's fine, but you need to present them as quotes, not original work. If you want to challenge my deletion, there's WP:DRV. --W.marsh 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What make sense is the common sense. Citizens have free access to the EU legislative activity (see http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2001/l_145/l_14520010531en00430048.pdf ), In particular, documents drawn up or received in the course of a legislative procedure shall be made directly accessible in accordance with Article 12. --Altermike 22:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public access is not public domain... I don't see anything in that giving people the right to modify and redistribute freely. Also are we sure the EU created these phrases? I found them on UN documents, which are under conventional copyright. --W.marsh 22:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2) says, Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. and (6) Wider access should be granted to documents in cases where the institutions are acting in their legislative capacity, including under delegated powers, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of the institutions' decision-making process. Such documents should be made directly accessible to the greatest possible extent. They are not public accessible, they are OPEN ACCESSIBLE IN THE GREATEST POSSIBLE EXTENT and they are related to human rights to democracy. About UN documents, I don´t want to talk about them, because the source it´s the EU --Altermike 05:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't that statement inherently means the documents can be freely modified and redistributed. It just means they should be accessible... to people with disabilities, without computers, etc. If you really want to challenge based on evidence presented so far, WP:DRV. --W.marsh 13:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you haven´t read the document --Altermike 15:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then quote what in those documents actually says they're in the public domain, not just publicly accessible. There's a big difference. Public domain is a legal concept, publicly accessible is a fuzzy directive that is of little meaning legally. --W.marsh 15:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Jmlk17 08:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Categorization (especially #4.2, "Look before you leap") and Wikipedia:Overcategorization (especially #10, "Small with no potential for growth" and #11, "Mostly overlapping categories"). Category:Car doors & Category:Vehicle doors, Category:Domestic helper robots, Category:Deep cycle automotive batteries, Category:Brakes, etc etc etc are all examples of redundant, overlapping or excessive categorization. --DeLarge 14:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. --DeLarge 16:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Automotive_engineering&oldid=127936083 So, added by a anonym user, as the opinions to the merge--Altermike 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And? Already removed as vandalism. Your addition of uncivil comments is not justified by previous comments of a similar nature; "Two wrongs make a right" is a logical fallacy. --DeLarge 16:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It´s the same principle: two anonym users don´t make two votes. And you reverted basing on them. And I see really you hasn´t done any improvement to any of both articles. --Altermike 17:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are using the comments of User:mholland as the basis of your argument? Anonymous IPs are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" appears on the Main page, and is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Furthermore, you continue to dismiss entirely the opinions of User:Greglocock, who contributed to the debate as well on the page that you did not check before merging out of process.

As an aside, the adjective is "anonymous", not "anonym". --DeLarge 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymusers are not allowed to vote. This is clear. And you doesn´t followed the right procedure. So you make a big mistake doing this. You must revert the splitting, now. --Altermike 06:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC). As an aside, one thing is anonymous users and other anonymusers that are anonymous users that vote without been registered --Altermike 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find that written down in the wiki rules and we'll discuss it. YOU don't make the rules. I'm not sure that anyone who posts under a pseudonym actually has that much to boast about. Greglocock 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are written. Another problem is that you don´t read them. And you also don´t read the comments to the articles. This is the last warning: improving, stablishing relation between both articles, or re-merging--Altermike 06:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the rule that defines whose opinion counts when it comes to deciding on a merge. Note that it (probably) should be a consensus, not a vote, judging by most wiki policies.

judging by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MERGE which says (my comments in <> brackets) "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page<didn't happen>. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages<didn't happen>. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus<didn't happen> (at least 5 days) or silence<didn't happen> (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." This process was not followed. Note that it does not say whose opinion matters. Incidentally I have modified both articles now in an attempt to explain the difference. Greglocock 07:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the problem I was too dialogic, but what this page merits is a request for deletion. --Altermike 05:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a dialog implies an /exchange/ of ideas. Not something you seem to understand. Anyway, put either or both up for deletion, then maybe you'll agree to abide by the decision.Greglocock 05:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you don´t answer to the main question about the article, as the repetition of the text of one article in the other . Don´t include the relation between one and the other. And so on. And you are wrong. I are wrong. I don´t have to make other request. --Altermike 06:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you create a page, and before anyone else edits it you decide to have it deleted, like what seems to have happened with Category:Electric planes, please put a {{db-self}} at the top of the page, in stead of blanking it. This will attract an administrator to it to have it deleted. I've marked this one for you - since you blanked it, that's enough. Od Mishehu 07:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Deadlink2, by Dispenser, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Deadlink2 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Deadlink2, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:Deadlink2 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I found one of your edits on Establishment. What did you mean by "EU Right of Establishment"? I don't believe I'm familiar with it but I removed the link since it became self-referential. Is there a different page on Wikipedia that it could link to instead? Maybe Acquis_communautaire? Thanks. --Macrowiz 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in article 43 ss. of the EC Treaty as an element of the free movement of persons

TITLE III. FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 2. RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT

Article 43

Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on the freedom of establishment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of another Member State shall be prohibited. Such prohibition shall also apply to restrictions on the setting-up of agencies, branches or subsidiaries by nationals of any Member State established in the territory of any Member State.

Freedom of establishment shall include the right to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48, under the conditions laid down for its own nationals by the law of the country where such establishment is effected, subject to the provisions of the chapter relating to capital.

Article 44

1. In order to attain freedom of establishment as regards a particular activity, the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall act by means of directives.

2. The Council and the Commission shall carry out the duties devolving upon them under the preceding provisions, in particular:

(a)by according, as a general rule, priority treatment to activities where freedom of establishment makes a particularly valuable contribution to the development of production and trade;

(b)by ensuring close cooperation between the competent authorities in the Member States in order to ascertain the particular situation within the Community of the various activities concerned;

(c)by abolishing those administrative procedures and practices, whether resulting from national legislation or from agreements previously concluded between Member States, the maintenance of which would form an obstacle to freedom of establishment;

(d)by ensuring that workers of one Member State employed in the territory of another Member State may remain in that territory for the purpose of taking up activities therein as self-employed persons, where they satisfy the conditions which they would be required to satisfy if they were entering that State at the time when they intended to take up such activities;

(e)by enabling a national of one Member State to acquire and use land and buildings situated in the territory of another Member State, in so far as this does not conflict with the principles laid down in Article 33(2);

(f) by effecting the progressive abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment in every branch of activity under consideration, both as regards the conditions for setting up agencies, branches or subsidiaries in the territory of a Member State and as regards the subsidiaries in the territory of a Member State and as regards the conditions governing the entry of personnel belonging to the main establishment into managerial or supervisory posts in such agencies, branches or subsidiaries;

(g) by coordinating to the necessary extent the safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and other, are required by Member States of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community;

(h) by satisfying themselves that the conditions of establishment are not distorted by aids granted by Member States.

Article 45

The provisions of this chapter shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is concerned, to activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, rule that the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to certain activities.

Article 46

1. The provisions of this chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

2. The Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, issue directives for the coordination of the abovementioned provisions.

Article 47

1. In order to make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons, the Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, issue directives for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications.

2. For the same purpose, the Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, issue directives for the coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking-up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons. The Council, acting unanimously throughout the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall decide on directives the implementation of which involves in at least one Member State amendment of the existing principles laid down by law governing the professions with respect to training and conditions of access for natural persons. In other cases the Council shall act by qualified majority.

3. In the case of the medical and allied and pharmaceutical professions, the progressive abolition of restrictions shall be dependent upon coordination of the conditions for their exercise in the various Member States.

Article 48

Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a Member State and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of Member States.

"Companies or firms" means companies or firms constituted under civil or commercial law, including cooperative societies, and other legal persons governed by public or private law, save for those which are non-profit-making.

It also appears in http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000X1218(01):EN:HTML (Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union)

Article 15 . Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work

1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

2. Every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.

3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.

And http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldpersons/freedomestablishment/

I think we can use for this Four Freedoms (European Union) article -- --Altermike 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the redirection is appropriate. Blaze Media Pro is a multimedia software and Ogg Vorbis is a codec. The software is not representative of the codec or vice versa. Unless there is some connection between the two unknown to me I suggest the redirection be removed.124.149.101.208 08:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Past has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Dr. Submillimeter 15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on NESEA, by Miremare (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because NESEA seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting NESEA, 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 leave a message on the bot operator's talk page 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template you created, Template:Date2, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted what appear a duplicates of the article you created and to set the ball rolling have tagged the pages for merger. Perhaps you might want to see it through.Saganaki- 01:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers[reply]

I added a picture to the mobility scooter page in response to your photo request. Phasmatisnox 09:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Thank you a lot. --Altermike (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Wikipedia media files (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you've worked on the tables page so I would like to ask you a question. Can you hide and show tables like templates?--Playstationdude 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don´t know. I image you can do it using a table in a template. --Altermike (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 4, --DeLarge (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article California Motors, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:ZIP requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Zivan, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Changeto requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Emotiv Systems, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotiv Systems. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Selket ^Talk 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Is there any way to use templates specific to one Wikipedia version on other wikis? What I would like to do is to create a template on Turkish wiki that uses {{Template:Numberofarticles}}. Is that possible? --Superyetkin (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Broken 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. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Green tuning, 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/Green tuning. 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. Guyonthesubway (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web color names for shades of green 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. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prototype electric vehicles, 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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Combined HTML background and text color names 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. Mhiji 16:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RequestWikibooks 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. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HelpCommons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Evil IP address (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I want to ask your little help. See the text (Italic):

My Book by Jon Phillips is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 3.0 License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at somecompany.com.

below The Agreement ... agreement text:..........

This text (and links inside - they are not visible here) is generated from the code on the Creative Commons (CC + License). Please, explain in detail - who is who, whose site as an example and so on. And else: Links (websites), which will be added to this article (database): Common Content - they will be automatically processed in the mode of the parametric license, or I must do this myself? Currently acts: Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0). Thanks! 2.94.251.207 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, this whole article] you've created is one bunch of plagiarism. I am not sure if you are still active, but please refrain from it. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reliable secondary sources. Highly promotional tone.

While all constructive 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. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Broken has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. James^x12345 19:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia media files, 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. DexDor (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Custom camper.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 4 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) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alternative Fuels Plan. Since you had some involvement with the Alternative Fuels Plan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Strategic Innovation and Research Initiative. Since you had some involvement with the Strategic Innovation and Research Initiative redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MiniLyrics 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/MiniLyrics 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. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of operators of double decker buses has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not a useful or notable list, see WP:LISTN

While all constructive 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Internal Market in Electricity Directive has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I wanted to add a sentence to "Electricity sector in the European Union" but it redirects here. No cites. Out of date. Too detailed.

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. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Internal Market in Electricity Directive 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/Internal Market in Electricity Directive 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Internal Market in Electricity Directive 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/Internal Market in Electricity Directive (2nd nomination) 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battery monitoring. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 18#Battery monitoring until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Proposed electric vehicles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Swarmanoid and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Swarmanoid until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Concurrency and Coordination Runtime has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable. There are no independent sources

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect AIR Lab and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#AIR Lab until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copied section to Wikisource has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]