User talk:Pete.Hurd

• 2005 User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1
• 2006 User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive2
• 2007 User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive3

Thanks for uploading Image:Beefeater-plays-for-lovers-cover.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 (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just ask away. If too complicated, I'll tell you and defer it. DGG (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sockpuppet of anyone; I do not know this mathstatwoman. This is untrue and unfair. If you want me to go away, please help get rid of my page and discussion, and I will stop editing, but please do not say untrue things about me. I do not know how to leave Wikipedia. I was just trying to help, but do not like false accusations under my name. Thank you. Alfred Legrand (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding above, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Alfred_Legrand. CM (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, just to let you know I've processed your request and you should be able to use the tool now. If you want information on any aspects of it, please feel free to check out Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Take care! ~ Riana ⁂ 03:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - turned out Viridae did it at the same time I was going to - can't take any credit here :) Good luck with it. ~ Riana ⁂ 03:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the report you recently created at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MathStatWoman, you may want to see the current discussion at WP:ANI#Wenocur. This is a little over my head, so hopefully we can get some advice and assistance from others more experienced with this kind of thing. — Satori Son 15:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, M.I.A. (band) is being AfD'd. I have no idea about the notability of this band, but you're probably more qualified to comment than most. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's perked-up. Please see: User talk:Fram#User:Runningman01 and offer your two-bits. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is sorted for now. FYI, I'm still keeping an eye on User:Jon Hobynx. I'm also interested in finding a wikiproject or something to ask to do a clean-up on the various bios these accounts have diddled with. Ideas? Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Subhumans-Incorrect-Thoughts.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 (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to thank you for being supportive of my effort to regain my adminship. Though it was not successful, your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 06:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which was unsuccessful with 19 support, 18 oppose, and 5 neutral. I have signed up for admin coaching and will retry later on in a couple more months.

I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. In addition, if you have reviewed my edit history, you would have found that I have edited pages covering aviation, higher education, Hong Kong, San Francisco Bay Area, Florida, engineering, roads and highways, schools, and my latest project, getting WP:ROBO up and running actively. This includes participation in WP:FLA, WP:UNI, WP:HK, WP:SFBA, WP:ENGINEERING, and others. I hope by participating in more AfD discussions and NPP work that I can expand my work to even more categories so I may change your mind. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game theory has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Jon Hobynx (talk · contribs) is back. You stated a while ago that you believed this to be R:128.40.76.3 (talk · contribs). I'll be posting a note at an/i soon and will drop a link back here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Jon's bagged and tagged. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R:128.40.76.3 and add anything you can. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted it and sent it to AFD. --Coredesat 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Modified Rankin Scale, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.strokecenter.org/trials/scales/rankin.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoyed that. Another Navy quote is from Winston Churchill (paraphrased). After being criticized for jeaprodizing the traditions of the British Navy he said: "The only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash." --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuching International Airport Flights. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 06:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the silly template message, but I think that was intended to be used for edits to the mainspace. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revist the Afd for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jess Dannenberg. He seems to have a remarkable publication record, besides the paper giving rise to the discussion in the article. DGG (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, done, Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I'm contacting you with this message because you have listed youself in Category:Wikipedians in Edmonton - if you are not actually in Edmonton, I apologize for bothering you; unfortunately, the sort of spamming I'm doing isn't conducive to reading everybody's userpages thoroughly. I am investigating the possibility of creating a Wikipedia meetup in Edmonton for sometime during the spring or summer of 2008. If you're interested, please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/Edmonton, add yourself to the list of interested editors, and watchlist the page. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gavin_McInnes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I'd never heard of the band and couldn't find any information myself. After you posted sources it was pretty clear that the band was notable- this is why it's good to have people with knowledge of the subject around. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. :) Thanks for letting me know you provided references, I have no problem changing my decision in response. Terraxos (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pete.Hurd, Of all the votes on my RfA I thought yours was the oddest but perhaps not surprising for someone in the field of psychology. I updated your Wikipedia entry that day and enjoyed looking at your work but didn't notice that you had interacted with Jimmy Wales or had dealings with MIT yourself, but things do get lost in a million users here. Anyway, hi from another user who saw Swans. I only saw them once. At First Avenue's 7th Street Entry. I don't know them or who it was for sure but think it was probably Algis Kizys who came out the Entry's stage door afterwards when he shook my hand as I walked home. His forearm was stronger than that little black door and in my recollection he looked taller than the door too. We all survived with smiles to boot. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Looking at his bio I hope it was Kizys because I bought a signed test pressing of Glenn Branca's Symphony No. 6 at his sale on eBay a few years ago. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How sad to try to understand a comment and not be deemed worth the time for a reply. Or did I misunderstand? -Susanlesch (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You asked a question? (FWIW, I don't uinderstand "but didn't notice that you had interacted with Jimmy Wales or had dealings with MIT yourself" of what that was supposed to relate to). Are you trying to make some point I ought to respond to? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I was responding to your comment and vote on my RfA. And trying to be understanding of it. I know sometimes that asking a direct question is the best way to receive a reply, but thought there was enough shared interest in music that you would understand. That's all right. Maybe I should have asked what you liked about Hüsker Dü? Regarding Mr. Wales and MIT, you brought them up, echoing someone else, in your comment on my RfA. I didn't see in your materials or article that you had dealt with them so I wondered why you brought them up. No problem, people can say whatever they like in RfAs. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any relation to Peter Hurd?

Smallbones (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface217 20:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pete. Could you see Talk:Evolution#Sexual_Selection and maybe make some remarks? Graft | talk 21:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly... done. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Haldane's dilemma article is terrible, it reads as if some creationist wrote it. I haven't looked around but I take it that this is a problem in open-edited encyclopaedia? --I am not a dog (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete.Hurd...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You discuss the relationship between evolutionarily stable strategies and Nash equilibria. If I were teaching basic evolutionary game theory to undergraduate biologists, then I wouldn't mention it at all, as it would likely confuse them more than it is useful. Those that are really into it can read it by themselves. I am not a dog (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although you opposed me in my recent RFA I will still say thanks as from your comments and the other users comments that opposed me I have made a todo list for before my next RFA. I hope I will have resolved all of the issues before then and I hope that you would be able to support me in the future. If you would like to reply to this message or have any more suggestions for me then please message me on my talk page as I will not be checking back here. Thanks again. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 16:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to "test the waters" to see if there is enough interest in revising WP:PROF to better reflect the arguments that are actually used in practice in academic-related AfDs. I've put a note about it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) with a somewhat more detailed explanation. There is also a link there to a possible draft of a revised version of WP:PROF, which is located in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Since you have participated in academic-related AfDs in the past, I'd like to hear your input about this idea, both in general and in terms of specifics. If you have some comments, please post them at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). You are also welcome to edit User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 in the meantime. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. I hope all is well. It's summer, and so I have time to waste on wikipedia. I started Sir Philip Sidney game. I plan to add the following stuff over the next few weeks: (1) empirical studies of cost, (2) extensions to continuous signals, goods, and need and (3) Bergstrom and Lachmann's criticisms about evolvability. Anyway, let me know what you think. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey-I upgraded Bayesian game to high importance. It seems like an essential part of game theory to me. But I see (noticed after the fact) that you set it "mid", so if you disagree I might concede the point. Cretog8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted a comment at this AfD debate. I tried to interpret what you said and hopefully I didn't muddle it up too badly. Please have look. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Professor Hurd. I closed the AfD before looking at some of your posts about User:Jessika Folkerts, but I looked at them afterwards, and I am well aware that the Peter L. Hurd article is not self-promotion. You may rest assured that I am keeping an eye on this case, and that I can see where the real policy violations are. Happy editing! -- SCZenz (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pete.Hurd. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Pete.Hurd/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 15:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch. Feel free to revert any of his edits as it's clear they are unwelcome. --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. At least we know now that anyone trying to reintroduce that content is very likely going to be a sockpuppet. Makes things easier. Cheers! --Rodhullandemu 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit Michael Potts article (of which I am the principal author). Contrary to an assertion by one commenter that Google News only offers one link to "michael potts" +"rocky mountain institute," I have provided a link showing that in fact, there are eight links. For example, I have just added to the article, under External Links, a Denver Post interview with Michael Potts on March 31, 2007, in which he speaks about his personal and business philosophies. Thank you for your time. I do appreciate your help in strengthening this article.Jhutson64 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the notice. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. you don't know me, but I was skimming deletion comments and I noticed that you have a PhD in biology. I don't, but I've attempted to rescue Richard A. Houghten from deletion and in the process created a Combinatorial biology article. I'd like to think that I've got my head about me but since I just got around to correcting a large misconception in an article I should know lots more about (see here), I'm looking for another set of eyes on those two articles. If you have 5 minutes, could you take a look at them and see if there is anything obviously amiss. Thanks for any help you can render! Protonk (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to restart the process of revising WP:PROF and have posted further comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#WP:PROF revision draft - revisited. Please take another look there and see if you have further comments. Of course, you are welcome to edit the draft itself too:User:Nsk92/Sandbox3. Thanks a lot, Nsk92 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, the AI-Wiki-page is once more deleted, this time by Bjweeks on a request from Hoary. I have written to them at their talkpages about cooperation to achieve an AI-Wiki-page that has general Wiki-consent, before publishing it again. Copies of these messages are on my talk page. Take a look at them. As AI is the largest anarchist-network in the world, it of course should have a Wiki-page. I invite you all to contribute to a better AI-Wiki-page for later publishing. This time so good that it will not be deleted by anyone.

(Anna Quist (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hitler's images from that day: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Just one more: (I can pull more if you wish) [6]

I'm not hiding anything here, but do you think adding these links would be helpful? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"do you think adding these links would be helpful?" No. The question isn't "how bad did the vandalism get?", but more "were you blocked for 3RR for good reason?" and "can you convince your fellow wikipedians that you have learned far more from the episode than not to break 3RR?". The latter two aren't addressed by answering the former. Make sense? Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed blocked for a good reason, but my intent was to stop what I thought was vandalism (at the time). After 3 months with discussion with this particular user, and an RfC, the bus stopped rolling and he got off Wikipedia. While I don't see that necessarily as a positive, it was an example of a user hellbent on righting a perceived wrong when in fact the entire article was well-referenced. Given that context, I still believe his actions to be in bad faith. As such, I still categorize them as vandalism, but that is only in retrospect. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to try to give another try and make a motion to proceed with the preplacement of the WP:PROF guideline by the revised version. I made a post to the talk page of WP:PROF to that effect and I'd appreciate if you comment there, one way or the other. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you voted in the nomination for deletion of the article Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. As I don't know you or your motives for voting as you did, and not to insult you or your intelligence, I felt that a misunderstanding occurred during the vote, causing many editors to vote for deletion based on the merits of a strawman argument. Please revisit the AfD (at the embedded link above) to gain a clearer understanding of my issue with this vote and either uphold or revise your vote -- I am not writing to you to demand that you retract -- rather, I feel that some votes may have been swayed by what may no longer apply to the article, and because most of those who voted merely reiterated the nominator's premise, perhaps a review will produce a fairer outcome. Thank you. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--Mind if I copy your comment from here to here, or do you want to add a comment yourself? (Of course, I've just finished reassessing the winners, but O well.) I'm not at all sure I agree, but you're making points nobody else did. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the image discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Human Sexuality Barnstar
		For intelligent and scholarly contributions to the Biology and sexual orientation page. — James Cantor (talk) (formerly, MarionTheLibrarian) 23:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I was actually wondering if I'd stopped making sense there awhile ago. Cheers Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi. i completely agree with your keep decision based on the new references. however, the National Academy of Sciences biography link still seems to be dead. (this was the only source when i nominated the article for deletion) thanks :) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey, thanks for the quick reply. really the point of my message though was that that link is dead for me. is it dead for you too? it seems like it could be an important link so i haven't removed it because maybe there is a typo or something. actually maybe it's just dead for me though because i'd be surprised if no one else had looked at it throughout the whole afd. xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your name from the Hatsu Akiko deletion debate -- and thanks for closing it. I'm one of the people who voted to keep the article, and if you check my User Page, also a biologist, with my doctorate from City University of New York back in 1969. But that's not what I'm here about.

Right now, I'm in the middle of an argument/debate with an editor who seems not to know very much about research, assembling a bibliography, or writing for Wiki. There are two places -- one is Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea and the other is shōjō‎. There's an opportunity here, I think, to help educate this person about research, and I'd like to ask you to visit Ponyo or shōjō and add your thoughts. So, if you have time, can you visit and comment? No, it doesn't have much to do with Japanese anime or folklore, but with how we do research and assemble a bibliography in any field. Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete.Hurd: There's a typo in your contribution to the "Outside Views" section on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson

You wrote Esterson (1989). This should read (1998).

The article in question is here: http://www.esterson.org/Masson_and_Freuds_seduction_theory.htm

If your interested, a more comprehensive article on the seduction theory and Freud's later accounts of the episode is here: http://www.esterson.org/Mythologizing_psychoanalytic_history.htm

Pete.Hurd: I have posted amended paragraphs on the Jeffrey Masson page. My reasons are given on my Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Esterson#Esterson.27s_reply Esterson (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete.Hurd: Could you give your opinion on a difference of views on a posting at the Mileva Maric discussion page? [7] Esterson (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Scraping foetus off the wheel.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the latest developments in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Reply. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Zero-sum (game theory) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete,
Back in 2006 you commented in the talk page of Sexual Selection on newly contributed text on a "female sabotage" hypothesis explaining female preferences for ornamented males. I just spotted it now, and am baffled to be honest why it's still there. Regardless of the merits of this idea, it really has had zero uptake in the field, so it might be a bit rich put it on apparently equal standing with the likes of Darwin, Fisher, and Zahavi. The subsequent paragraph, summarising another paper by the same author, comes apropos of nothing. Why didn't you take action? Evlshout (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Freedom versus license requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of 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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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), 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. magnius (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Natural selection has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rhythmpigs-an-american-activity.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Subhumans-Incorrect-Thoughts.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sex-mob-din-of-iniquity.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Squirrel-bait-cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Protest flag.png, 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You may or may not remember but back October 2007 you were involved in some discussions about the notability of the above article. The subject has now come up again, and I have just refereed to one of your comments in the new discussion. As a matter of good manners I thought I should make you aware. Codf1977 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Young Gavin McInnes.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Babe the Blue Ox (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability in question.

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. Crash Underride 07:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Today's Active Lifestyles may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Lifestyles''''' is [[Polvo]]'s second [[studio album]]. It was produced by [[Bob Weston]] and [released on [[Merge Records]] in 1993. Early versions featured red tigers in the yellow color

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete.Hurd. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete.Hurd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pete.Hurd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Babe the Blue Ox (band) 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/Babe the Blue Ox (band) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Gaismagorm (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]