User talk:PopUpPirate

Welcome to Wikipedia, the greatest encyclopedia on Earth!

You seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics. You may wish to review the welcome page, tutorial, and stylebook, as well as the avoiding common mistakes and Wikipedia is not pages. The Wikipedia directory is also quite useful. In addition, if you made any edits before getting an account, you may wish to assign those to your username.

By the way, an important tip: To sign comments on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This automatically adds your name and the time after your comments.

Hope to see you around the Wiki! And if you have any questions whatsoever, feel free to contact me on my talk page! - Elf

Retrievers and Labs

I also responded to your comment at Talk:Golden Retriever. Elf | Talk 04:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My email

My email isn't available because there are too many sickos out there who send disgusting emails.

You can always ask any other sysop to unblock the IP. RickK 22:11, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message about Belmont. It wasn't me that requested a photograph but I'm trying to find one anyway - I used to live close by and so I'm sure I have one somewhere that I can scan in upload! Dupont Circle 07:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Balsamic vinegar

Ahoy there, PopUpPirate! There's already a stub going on at Balsamic vinegar/Temp. It's not much to look at, and it could certainly use the help. Whenever Balsamic vinegar gets deleted, I'll move the temp page over to it. I'll be interested in seeing what you do to spice up the temp page. – Quadell ^(talk) (sleuth) 23:43, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

rehash of UK CotW

Hiya, I've made a few modifications to the UK Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Week, and I thought you'd be interested in the new page and helping out again with it, as you have contributed in the past! :) Talrias | talk 21:09, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rank and insignia of Starfleet FAC

Hello, you wrote: "Comment I've noticed that the TNG, DS9, VOY pics are made of multiple images - the table wraps incorrectly, so these really need to be saved as single images. Reduce your browsing window to half size to see what I mean. Otherwise - great!--"

I was wondering if you wish to take a look at the page and see if some of the images that I have added are exactly what you are describing about. I did not fix the tables, but I mainly fixed the images. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:PD-awio

Template:PD-awio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:PD-awio. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your great effort to the page enzyme!~ :-D Do you think the aritcle can move to the FAC list right now? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope you can support my nomination. :-) PS You have made your message in my user page instead of discussion page. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Law FAC

Hi,

I've put some images into the article now. The quality isn't very good, but they're just about acceptable and I'll see if I can improve them later. I think I've dealt with every point you raised in your objection now, so if you get time to look at it could you either change your vote to support or let me know what else needs doing?

Thanks, CTOAGN 09:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden

I notice you uploade some .ogg files, I would like to do the same for some of the Motorhead singles I've written, any advice on how to do this?. Alf 18:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to congratulate you on all the hard work you did to get Maiden featured on the front page. Hell of a job man! I plan to follow your lead as I redo the UFO pages as well. So if that one starts looking similar it's intentional. - MordredKLB 17:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wolf

Hi, PopUpPirate. I've replied to your comment at the wolf peer review and added a bit of text on werewolves. What do you think? Thanks, Sango123 16:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wolf is now an FAC. :) Sango123 20:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Taoism

Hi Mark. It was not me that made those edits, I think they were made by User:Wayward, I only capitalised a single word. Rje 23:23, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

With permission images

Since Wikipedia's goal is to make a free (as in freedom as well as price) encyclopedia, we do not permit with permission images. We do, however, allow some fair use. User:Noitall is currently nominating a lot of older fair use images, mostlikely to prove a point because he's been arguing very hard to keep his own NS and claimed fair use images (that clearly aren't). In your justification for keeping these images you need to state why they are fair use or they will be deleted. Lots of older FA's contain copyvio, so that isn't a good excuse on its own. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --Gmaxwell 21:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and the rational manner they were put over. Yeah, it's fair do's...... I tend to be an inclusionist because, erm, there's so many great pictures on here that perhaps shouldn't be, and probably no trouble will come from them being here... but I fully take your point and understand why the images go if they have to. It's just a shame that every site on the web doesn't have the same policies as on here! I sometimes think that the policies here are too strict but I'll go with the flow! Take care. --PopUpPirate 23:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to be able to discuss this and not have an argument for once! :) Yea, it does stink that nearly everyone violates the letter of the law on some of these images, yet we won't.. even when we know it won't be a problem. On the other hand, every time someone uses one of those images they assume a liability. It's not a pretty situation. By denying such images we encourage wikipedians to create (and obtain) images that are really free to the world, which is a good thing. ... At the same time, if we wish to completely cover some subjects we must use some fair use images. If some of these images are clearly fair use, please object to their deletion and include the reasoning for fair use (and what article they'd be fair use in) in the image page. Right now we're on a big no-source cleanup campaign... Once that is done I'm going to propose a fair use cleanup which will cause the removal of fair use we can't get a justfication on... you can get a jumpstart on that process by defending the images here that really are fair use. (i.e. you're using part of a copyrighted work to discuss that work specifically). --Gmaxwell 23:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that image tags like promophoto will be no longer valid? Not sure where I stand here (grins) because I totally agree that making the whole place full of "free to the world" images is GREAT, just perhaps at the detriment of article quality. I'm quite new to here so am just getting to grips with it all - it's all good stuff that the general concensus is to "all things free" I must admit, there's just a little "but" in there :D I'm learning! It's better to have a debate about these things though, rather than the robotic "No Fair Use" which puts a shitter on things when people have taken time to upload something and get a blank rebuttal. For your tone I thank you. --PopUpPirate 23:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Law on FAC again

Hi,

Denis Law, which you voted support for last time, is back on FAC. If you still like the article (not much has changed) then another vote would be appreciated. I hope you're happy at all the trouble those fucking images you asked me to upload the first time round are causing. ;-)

Probably going to remove the second one (according to the image upload page there's a helpful one-screenshot-per-page limit being introduced) and see if I can get a clearer version of the first somehow.

If you have any ideas of how to deal with the objection "Good article, but not interesting to people who aren't interested in this sort of thing", other than laughing at it, then I could do with some advice. I'm starting to think that a "Deliver an electric shock to this user down the internet" link just below User contributions would be fantastic addition to WP.

Cheers, CTOAGN 13:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the good advice. I still think the electric-shock-button idea is a good one though :-) You been having problems with images as well? CTOAGN 21:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OS

Fair use images? On a FAC? You're probably feeling like this.

Cheers for the vote on Denis Law. CTOAGN 12:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mark, sorry about the long list of whinges on the FAC page, but once I get started... ;-) I'd love to actually help, but I'm untangling the History of the Panama Canal right now... Still, I think a few touch-ups and a bit of re-org should cover most of it. Chin up! (Or are you feeling like this?) Johantheghost 19:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Marine Mammal Program

Thanks for your support! You're the only one... :-/ Still, I'll probably nominate it soon. P.S. Interested in the Panama Canal? — Johantheghost 09:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — thanks again for contributing to U.S. Navy Marine Mammal Program during its recent peer review. Just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated the article for FA status. — Johantheghost 16:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ganja goo balls

I'd like to speedy keep that article as I have added some content to it. - RoyBoy ^800 23:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone National Forest

I want to thank you for voting on Shoshone National Forest as a potential Featured article and it has now been promoted. I appreciate you taking the time to chime in. Thanks again!--MONGO 09:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Was just looking at it when you rang. The article is definitely getting better but still has a few problems (I was just trying to fix the Specifications section but lost patience with deciphering the damn template, see talk). The two main things that are bothering me are unbalance (very large Aus. section, small UK section, for example). And the design section needs to be enlarged; there are a lot of unique performance and manufacturing things about this plane. I'll try to work on it as time permits. --Duk 22:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better arrangement.--Duk 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAE Systems

Thanks very much for your input. Mark83 22:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/06/02/10a

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Have a look at "Station to Station" by Steve Parissien, roughly pages 44-52 for some info on Brunel and the stations at Paddington and Temple Gate. Best of luck. --Sophitus 09:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Featured sounds

Hi PopUp — That project has indeed stalled, and I don't know if anything is going to become it there. However, the Commons has had a Media of the Day on their main page for a while now, I think (part of the question of doing it here was whether or not it would make more sense to do it on commons). So the only question is whether we would want to have a (duplicate) project on wikipedia. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAE Systems changes

Hi again. I've reorganised the article as per your suggestion. If you have a couple of minutes I'd like to hear what you think and if you have any other suggestions. Thanks, Mark83 23:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Civility on your user page...

... and we all aren't perfect, for sure. But This edit was a bit untoward. I respect your opinion, but I ask that you respect your fellow wikipedians, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you were offended, the "ffs" was said with a grin, not with an angry tone! Regarding the post against Spoo for front page on April 1st. Hey, I'm a big Star Wars fan (aren't we all) but I'd vote against an article on say Midochlorians or whatever. Again, apologies. --PopUpPirate 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narcosis (band)

Famous band, lots to create, I've posted a link on their page to direct people here to add to the article. --PopUpPirate 02:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, you should include this in the article. Currently it fits the speedy deletion criteria (specifically A7) and will be deleted soon if not expanded. Punkmorten 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I especially like how you put "notable" in the first sentence :) But thanks, I'll remove it from my scope now. Punkmorten 20:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Bill of Rights

Back, and better than ever. You voted on the last one, come see the improvements. Kaisershatner 17:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-35

Yes production has commenced, but these are SDD aircraft, the phase the UK signed up to in 2001. The UK government is threatening to walk away from signing up to the production phase (post-SDD) unless tech. transfer is resolved. The article at present suggests that although the UK has raised the possibility of walking away it has committed itself to the programme, that is not the case. Mark83 19:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'd be very careful before claiming to be an authority on the subject! But as I understand it the SDD phase covers production of 22 F-35s — 14 flying test aircraft and eight ground-test aircraft. The UK is fully committed to this phase, having invested $2 billion to cover both it's share of development costs and the costs of UK specific requirements.

However the actual production phase is the issue in question (post-SDD). Today's (Wednesday's) Times quotes Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement:

Speaking to reporters before the show-down with senators [of the Senate Armed Services Commitee], he said: "I'm aware that Britan can be accused of understatement on these things. We should be absolutely clear what our bottom line is on this matter... we will not be able to purchase these aircraft."

i.e. The RAF (and Royal Navy) are not prepared to accept the situation where "they would have to request help from Lockheed Martin specialists in the US after each sortie.." (quote from same article).

You've been very helpful regarding the BAE peer review so I am very happy to explain myself and consult with you. On a personal note (i.e. an opinionated comment which I wouldn't dream of adding to an article); I really can't believe that the US is unable/unwilling to grant a waiver (as Canada has been granted) to the UK. Particularly with regard to the investment of BAE (and MES) in the US defence industry and the massive contribution of UK forces in Iraq & Afghanistan (regardless of my opinion over "right" or "wrong" in that respect). Mark83 23:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think integration of the Meteor could be the stumbling block. After all, if the US decided that the Meteor/F-35 package was that strong they could easily buy Meteor themselves (after all Boeing is a major partner in the programme and would probably have no problem gaining a license for US production). I think it's just the fact that the US Congress sees tech. transfer as a major security risk almost regardless of the country in question. I remember reading that even Lockheed Martin has lobbied against tech transfer to BAE - with partners like that...! Mark83 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mini

Thanks 1e6 for your help in getting Mini to FA status! Do you have any idea why the little gold star doesn't show up in the article? I thought that meant that the article was featured - but it didn't pop up this afternoon when Raul did his update. Did he forget something - or are we supposed to do something? SteveBaker 01:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for goldstarizing Mini - I assumed it was something more complicated than that. SteveBaker 14:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

postman pat

You didn't explain your reversion of Postman Pat. The revision you returned it to contained a link to a site full of ads, and in reverting you removed a chunk of content. As such, I've reverted your reversion - if you revert again, please explain why, and don't mark such a major change as a minor revision. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Hasibhussain.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Hasibhussain.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Thuresson 13:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The Essential Iron Maiden Bobby Jarzombek Jesu (band) Transylvania (song) American Recordings Ian Paice Run To The Hills Iron Maiden (song) Kevin Shirley 12 Wasted Years Enhanced CD Page description language Strange World (song) Def American Derek Riggs Martin Birch Samson (band) Nick Simper The Trooper

Cleanup Monsters of Rock E.A.S. Prasanna List of iron laws Merge Cricket Australia First 62 Videos aired on MTV Methemoglobin Add Sources Owned Dave Baksh Christy Carlson Romano Wikify KWID CATIA List of rock musicals Expand FM broadcast band SEPECAT Jaguar Perchloric acid

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Poll

Hello there. I am an overseer of your brain. I have come to tell you that the Wikimetal Project is holding a poll on the inclusion of certain genres on the heavy metal template and footer that goes onto metal related articles. This poll has a closing date, however, and so here i am, reminding you to vote if you want to, by pumping strange chemicals through your veins. Its hard work being a brain you know!

If you would like to help in this crucial part of the project, the page is here. No, thats not it? Oh my! I posted those pictures of myself, what a devil i am. No the actuall link is here on this link.

I guess ill see you at breakfest when you finally recover from Wikipedia. Bye for now body, your Brain 07:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There is a consensus discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft#Infobox Aicraft consensus discussion on adopting a non-specifications summary infobox for aircraft articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks! - Emt147 ^Burninate! 18:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{globalize/Muslim}}

While it's nice to 'square the circle', I guess, I'd be interested to know if you are aware of any articles that could benefit from being tagged with this template. Because if you just created it to square the circle (without a known target in mind), it's going to be of no use. — mark ✎ 09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark thanks for your comments - I've done it to see what the reaction will be, more than anything. --PopUpPirate 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to argue that the lack of such templates would in itself be an example of systemic bias. SteveBaker 18:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem.

Please do not alter long standing, agreed upon (I would say policy or guideline here but Kim would yell, so...) community pages without some sort of discussion first, as you did here. However, I do apologise for my use of the rollback tool in reverting your edit, it was hasty and overly hostile of me. Thank you.--Sean Black ^(talk?) 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies. The edit I meant to point to was this one. Sorry for the confusion.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline diagram for Mini.

I think it was you who made the Timeline image for the Mini article. There seems to be a problem with it (which since we made it all the way onto the front page without anyone noticing it is pretty amazine!)...near the bottom there is a long line of text that is cut off on the right.

Any chance you could re-do it?

Thanks. SteveBaker 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Recent Upload

Hey, I just noticed that you uploaded Image:Pigeontower.jpg and it looks pretty cool! I was wondering if you have more details about where the structure is located, what it is, what its used for, etc. I think it looks pretty neat and might be useful in one of our articles. Also, in the future you may want to consider uploading your pictures to the commons so that they will be accessible on all of the different language projects. I look forward to hearing the details behind this pic, and let me know if you have any questions. --Hetar 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sound of the day

You expressed interest in WP:FSC, and as that didn't go anywhere, I think this might function as a workable intermediate step to building a "sound community" on Wikipedia.--Pharos 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Hi, lovely pic of Yarrow Reservoir, it deserves a few more links :) Feel free to replace mine if you have anything better. Lancsalot 22:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! very nice pictures. Though; I assume you've used an editor on them as the depth has gone a bit soft, when saved. Would you mind if I tweaked them slightly, & re-uploaded them, to make them a bit sharper and bring out the colours that digital cameras often don't show? If you don't like the result you only have to revert the image back to its prior version on the image page? clicking on the dates of the revised versions or older versions will let you view the differences and rev will revert it instantly. Richard Harvey 10:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! I won't upload the enhanced image until you have seen which I mean on article:- Yarrow Reservoir.

IE:- Image:Yarrowreservoir.jpg and Image:Alanceb.jpg. This is one of my own:- Image:A83,_Glen_Croe,_Rest_&_Be_Thankful_RLH.jpg to give you an idea of what I mean, it won't be a glaring change just sharper with depth. Richard Harvey 11:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrow Reservoir

Hi!, I have done the images and reuploaded them. You may need to press refresh on your webpage, when viewing the article or image pages, after they have loaded, to clear your cookie cache of the old files. I have also uploaded a high resolution aerial image of Rivington reservoir to the Upper Rivington Reservoir article. I hope you like it. If you download it you will be able to zoom in quite close. Richard Harvey 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ask:- is the Yarrow Res the little one, by the side of the Anglezark Res wall where it joins the Rivington Res? Richard Harvey 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an Aerial image of the Reservoir to the page and adjusted the images to give precedence to your photo and have the Alance Bridge next to its location on the Aerial image. Which I hope meets with your approval? If not let me know and why, as constructive feed back helps me improve my edits. Richard Harvey 17:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglezarke

Yep, feel free to use some of the images from [1] as long as you dont add them all making it an alternative guide. I also have access to some historical photo's via Les Ainsworth e.g. from the 60's when you could drive a landrover into the bottom of the quarry. Carl spencer 09:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Please don't use automated tools to revert anything but vandalism or mistakes [2]. See Wikipedia:Reverting#Rollback. Thanks. --W.marsh 14:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the polite reply. --W.marsh 19:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other Iron Maiden

You set up the article originally. Can you cite some sources ? In particular, where do you get the description "doom metal" ? (I note Trev Thoms's website refers to them as progressive heavy rock.) -- Beardo 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2003 EL61

You recently added a technical flag to the EL61 talk page. Did you mean for this to refer to the talk page or the article itself? The article seems fine to me, but the talk page is by necessity complicated.Michaelbusch 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ran through the article, cleaned up the wording and defined some of the terms. If you check it and find it satisfactory, please remove the tag.Michaelbusch 03:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 04:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-35 Lightning II

F-35 Lightning II is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 19:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome: I'm just the messenger. I'm sorry you got hit twice. The current process allows for two weeks of review, followed by two weeks of FARC (Featured Article Removal Candidate), so you have a month to work on the articles, and more time is usually granted if progress is ongoing. Sandy 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAE Systems (again)

Hi. You were very helpful with this article's peer review. It has since crashed and burned through a FAC. However both have these have led to significant improvements. Could you suggest the best next step, another peer review pointing out the improvements made? Thanks for your time, Mark83 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mark83 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look over the FAC. I think all of the objections have been adressed:

• Lists — Dramatic difference between this version (pre-FAC) [3] and the current version. [4]
• History section too short and only one subsection — Fixed.
• "Odd edit link" — I'm assuming that has been fixed, I haven't noticed one.
• "Refs do not use cite php format" — Fixed
• Quotes should not be in italics — Fixed
• Reorganisation suggestions followed.
• Criticism too short — It could do with more, but I have expanded it a lot since the FAC. Pre-FAC http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BAE_Systems&diff=66184353&oldid=66164786 and the current version BAE Systems#Criticisms

I'm not proposing to rush into a FAC right away. I know there are still improvements to be made. However it has come a long way since August. Mark83 22:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ballbarrow.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ballbarrow.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --– Quadell ^(talk) (random) 19:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Abysinniayarrow.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Abysinniayarrow.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there 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. — MECU≈talk 23:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this image for deletion because it is not used on Wikipedia and I don't believe it has any encyclopedic value. You could add it to your userpage or move it to commons. Either way would save the image. Nothing personal. --MECU≈talk 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does like free images. But only if they're used. Commons likes free images. You should upload it there and delete this one, and then you can still have it on your userpage! --MECU≈talk 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have added this photo to WP:TROLL#Misidentified trolls (a humorous essay). Thank you for contributing it. --BigDT 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer GAC

Hello, can you please explain this? I believe you should've previoded a more formal messege of GA passing or comments, and add it on WP:GA in the appropriate category. Thanks. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're meant to leave some comments on the talk page if any areas can be improved and such ;P. M3tal H3ad 01:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music Wikiproject invitation

Hello WikiProject Metal member.
WikiProject Metal music is important in expanding encyclopedic coverage of the metal. It brings attention to the lesser-known bands, and significantly improves the quality of the famous ones. Five Featured articles and two formers is proof of that.
This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently resurrected WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and embrace the links between metal and rock music in general.
Rock on.
-- Reaper X 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox megalith

Hi, You put a note on a couple of talk pages I watch about Infobox Megalith & I'm trying to implement it on Stanton Drew stone circles & have found a bug if you put the first line as "{{Infobox Megalith" it doesn't seem to work, but if you remove the word infobox ie "{{Megalith" it seems to work - any ideas why? Also Where it says "type" what should I put for Stanton Drew ? Henge? Also Stanton Drew has several entries on megalithic.co.uk for Hautville's Quoit, Avenue, Cove, Cirle etc - which one should I use?— Rod ^talk 15:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an admin on the Megalithic Portal. Glad you want to link to the Portal on this template - bear in mind that we aim to make our pages accurate, but cannot guarantee anything. When we verify sites we do it using other resources such as the English Heritage PastScape site and so on. I think there's a danger of re-creating the content of the Portal, and the Modern Antiquarian, and various other prehistory sites, here on wikipedia. I guess its down to what you consider to be the criteria for a prehistoric site to be 'notable' & thus worthy of appearing on wikipedia. JimChampion 17:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation Newsletter delivery

The March 2007 issue of the Aviation WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Davemurray.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Davemurray.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 09:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to say WHY it's fair use in the linked article, I assume it's being used to illustrate the artist/groups style and is of a reduced quality and substantialy reduced length compared to the entire work?

ShakespeareFan00 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Live-At-Donnington.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Live-At-Donnington.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 00:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROF Chorley

See the ROF Chorley talk page. Would help if a reply was posted there. 86.145.69.177 14:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR

Hello! Was this version really so objectionable that you couldn't leave it in place while discussing it? I prefer the version to which you reverted, but it really seemed like we were beginning to reach an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should not have labeled that edit "minor." —David Levy 23:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor" edits

I noticed that you're labeling almost all of your edits in this manner (many of them quite inappropriately). Please follow the above link for an explanation of what a "minor" edit is. Thank you. —David Levy 23:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Minor Edits and tick the box as I see fit, thanks. --PopUpPirate 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what your understanding of minor edits is (and why you believe that almost all of your edits qualify)? What, in your assessment, is not a minor edit? —David Levy 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I do not need to explain my criteria for what I do and do not consider to be a minor edit. Thanks. --PopUpPirate 12:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm offering you an opportunity to explain why you believe that your edits are not disruptive. You may decline to answer my questions, but this reinforces the appearance that your edits are disruptive. It's your call. —David Levy 12:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a definitive idea what I label Minor, though don't intend to be disruptive about it. If I am still considered disruptive, despite a great amount of constructive editing and FA work, then so be it. --PopUpPirate 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deem almost every edit "minor," evidently indiscriminately. I'm not accusing you of intentionally causing disruption, but applying this label to edits that aren't minor (as defined at Help:Minor edit) certainly is disruptive. The feature exists to provide information to fellow users, and you obfuscate your edits' nature by conveying information that is false (again according to the widely accepted definition of a "minor edit"). When reverting several users' good-faith changes, for example, it's extremely misleading to refer to this edit as "minor" (and I don't understand why you believe that it is an accurate description).

I'm sure that you've done a great deal of good work, but that doesn't offset the above. When someone respectfully expresses a concern that some of your on-wiki actions are problematic, saying "so be it" is disrespectful to the community. —David Levy 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Robertsradio.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Robertsradio.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell ^(talk) (random) 14:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N/A - meets the 10 criteria --PopUpPirate (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Roberts_logo.jpg

I have tagged Image:Roberts_logo.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removal of tag

I put the refimprove tag on the Winter Hill article as there are no references given except the one I put on myself. You have now removed it for no good reason other than saying I should contact the original contributors. I don't have to contact anybody to discuss the use of tags, they are used to draw attention to articles with problems. If the original contributors are concerned enough to have the article on their watchlist they will see that it has been tagged and hopefully do something about it. I am putting the tag back on, please do not remove it again until the article has references added. Richerman (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Videopieces.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Videopieces.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) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fromtheretoeternity.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fromtheretoeternity.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) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fredmbe.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fredmbe.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) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Live-At-Donnington.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Live-At-Donnington.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) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ironmaiden10years.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ironmaiden10years.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) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nww.gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Nww.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Access-at-watermans.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Access-at-watermans.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IronMaidenCSIT.ogg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IronMaidenCSIT.ogg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Phones4u logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Phones4u logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isambard Kingdom Brunel FAR

I have nominated Isambard Kingdom Brunel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advert Tag on Transcendental Meditation article

Hi Pirate, the section you have tagged was created with input and discussion from multiple editors. Your opinion and input are welcome but it would be more productive if you gave specific feedback on the talk page rather than a sort of 'hit and run' tag. As it stands now we can only guess what you had in mind. Best wishes,--Kbob (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC

HI Pirate, I see you have re-added the tag and indicate you also made comments on the talk page. Can you please tell me where on the page I can find your comments? What section is it in? thanks for your help. --Kbob (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting opportunity to get involved!

As a member of the Aviation WikiProject or one of its subprojects, you may be interested in testing your skills in the Aviation Contest! I created this contest, not to pit editor against editor, but to promote article improvement and project participation and camraderie. Hopefully you will agree with its usefulness. Sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here. The first round of the contest may not start until September 1st-unless a large number of editors signup and are ready to compete immediately! Since this contest is just beginning, please give feedback here, or let me know what you think on my talkpage. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Iron Maiden (blues rock band)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Iron Maiden (blues rock band). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Maiden (blues rock band). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Hasibhussain.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hasibhussain.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propagator

Hi, as Heated Propagator was virtually unfindable when I searched for it (I searched for Propagator), I have moved the article to prominence at Propagator and moved the other article to Propagator (Quantum Theory). Should make it much more visible - I've also linked to our Propagator article from Plant propagation (I've created a new section in there). Cheers! --PopUpPirate (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always respect boldness, and someone who is prepared to take action to solve a perceived problem, so I will start by saying well done. I have little involvement in either article, as I merely updated the cat on Heated propagator 2 years ago, so I am not fully qualified to make an informed judgement on your action. However, I did wonder why a stub that gets 145 views a month, would be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, when the other article gets over 4,000 views a month? I looked at GoogleBooks - [5] and there seems to be slightly more books on propagator in relation to Quantum Theory than in relation to seeds. However, a web search resulted in many pages of links to seed propagators. I suspect that while the Quantum Theory propagator may be the main article, a number of people may have encountered your difficulty of arriving at Propagator looking for information on seed propagation, and there not being a link through to the appropriate article. My suggestion is that Propagator is restored to the Quantum Theory article, and a link added to a piece on seed propagators, which, as the current article is a stub, and all the information is already contained in Plant propagation, should point to the appropriate section in that article. Someone looking for details of a seed propagator would welcome the information being placed in context inside a fuller article on seed propagation. And Seed propagation mat should be merged with Plant propagation and Seed propagator and Heated propagator redirected to the appropriate section within Plant propagation. What do you think? SilkTork *^YES! 12:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have read your profile and agree entirely with your Bold philosophy, it cuts through the crud so often! Cheers. I googled for Propagator and couldn't find a Wiki article, as the article was on QT, whereas most other links were to the heated props. That probably explains the page views - heated prop was orphaned. Granted there's probably more books on QT propagation but it's probably because there's a lot more to write about it! A heated prop is a simple device, so the page will probably be short, and there's not much to write about them, but it's of interest and importance to a wider range of people (I'd guess). I'll sit back and see how it pans for now - thanks for the nice comment --PopUpPirate (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change has been up long enough now to judge the impact. Traffic for Propagator (Quantum Theory) has to mainly go through Propagator. Looking at the viewing figures for Propagator (Quantum Theory) compared with those for Propagator and looking back at the viewing history for Propagator (Quantum Theory) when it was called Propagator, it appears that the majority of viewers are looking for Propagator (Quantum Theory), and are passing through Propagator. Some have already found Propagator (Quantum Theory) and are skipping Propagator, so the overall viewing figures for Propagator are down. It was worth trying, but we have to restore the Propagator (Quantum Theory) article to the old title and provide an appropriate hatnote directing people to Plant propagation. SilkTork *^YES! 14:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

hey i just want to say that you do a fantastic job on wikipedia i hope you can keep doing more

CommanDNConqueR (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biosafety level, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Compton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chorley and District Natural History Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chorley and District Natural History Society 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/Chorley and District Natural History Society 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. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hughenden, Greenway and Hilltop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Narcosis (UK band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Narcosis (UK 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/Narcosis (UK band) 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peppers

I love your username. I also love your "pepper thermometer" banners measuring the Scoville units of hot chili peppers. However, even with such a small image, I think it might be worthwhile to replace them with PNG's or even SVG's. I'm not really much of an SVG artist, but PNG is easy. Let me know if you have any thoughts. And yes I do realize that if I do this I will need to replace a lot of image links, but I think most of them should be parts of templates. —Soap— 02:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Winterhillmastthin.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Winterhillmastthin.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oldrachels.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oldrachels.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:IronMaidenSOTC.ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IronMaidenSOTC.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:IronMaidenRTTH.ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IronMaidenRTTH.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:IronMaidenBNW.ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IronMaidenBNW.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 07:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:IronMaidenSOTC.ogg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IronMaidenSOTC.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]