User talk:Zoroastrama100

Welcome

Hello, Zoroastrama100, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Hamtechperson

Happy editing! Hamtechperson 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Nomination for deletion of Template:1912

Template:1912 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Raymond Daddazio

A tag has been placed on Raymond Daddazio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Raymond Daddazio. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Mel Gussow, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Carolyn Gusoff. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're changing all of the Columbia Journalism and Columbia College links to simply "Columbia University" when your changes are squarely contradicted in almost each case by the biographical material cited at each article. I'm changing them back to comport with the sources, and may begin undoing your changes wholesale if the next few pages reveal, like most I've seen so far, that you're editing contrary to facts. If you know something that is not apparent from the reliable sources, please find a reliable source to support your interpretation and begin including it in support of these edits. Otherwise please stop making them. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stanley A. Rabin

The article Stanley A. Rabin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Bio - cited coverage of him specifically is collateral at best and a quick Google search turns up nothing more promising.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Helmut W. Schulz

The article Helmut W. Schulz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Bio - cited coverage of him establish facts, but not notability. A quick Google search turns up nothing more promising.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed adopt the logo itself from the Columbia website, and added a caption underneath (Columbia University, Columbia engineering). I am not sure when the logo itself is actually created, so I have no idea about free use. I read over the fair use guideline. Is it possible for me to use this logo under non-free but fair use? If not, how should I make the image fair?Zoroastrama100 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate this question because the answer is never clear to me. What I'd do if I were in your shoes would be to go to the images of other schools and see what the license terms are for them. I think there's a fair use exemption or allowance here but images I have to say just perplex the heck out of me and so I'd be inclined just to adopt the same thing that seems to work for others. Sorry I can't do more for you there. JohnInDC (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'll do a little investigating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastrama100 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I've tracked down the images you used to construct this composite image and added an appropriate image summary and fair use rationale for its use on Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science. Please review my changes when you have a chance. Personally, I think it would have been better to just use the plain crossed hammer logo rather than compositing text in with the image since that text already appears next to the logo in the Columbia School of Engineering and Applied Science article. —RP88 (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoroastrama100, please do not remove the PUF tag from File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png until the discussion is closed at PUF - the closing admin will remove the tag Also, for some reason you also remvoed the {{non free logo}} image copyright tag from the image. All non-free images are required to a have both a non-free image copyright tag and a fair use rationale. One or the other, by itself, is insufficient. —RP88 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as bad as all that

I left you with a lot of stuff to digest when you next see your Talk page and I realized later that it might be discouraging to see a list of so many things that seem to be wrong, but don't let it get to you. Your edits seem to be essentially sound and intelligent (if a bit subject-area focused); you just need to become a bit more familiar with some of Wikipedia's rules and policies, like notability and sourcing. Also edit summaries, while not required, are *really* helpful. Anyhow please don't become frustrated. You'll figure it out! JohnInDC (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! I will, but I also sent you several messages regarding the notability factors. I think I have them well established. I would welcome any future helps you may have. --Zoroastrama100 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good to see you responding here. Thanks. In short - please, please go have a look at WP:BIO and see what makes someone notable or not. Schultz may be in; Rabin, I think not. (Please excuse the testy tone of my responses on my own Talk page - let's continue the discussion here.) The upshot is that one's position is not really enough to establish notability, not at least mere officers of companies. The subject (typically) needs independent notability, which is established by coverage in third party articles of them (versus mere references). I could go into more detail but for now I just want to get this posted so we can start a dialogue! JohnInDC (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I agree with you in regards to Rabin. Its fine if you delete the article. Sorry if some of my previous actions are somewhat impolite. I am just starting to learn the proper etiquettes of being a wiki editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoroastrama100 (talk • contribs)

To continue. It's not enough that *you* understand what makes someone famous or notable. Wikipedia is, finally, just a repository, a coherent collection, of what others have said about the subjects here. So when you create an article about someone and all that it says is that so-and-so was a professor and a patent holder, the (critical) reader is left with the question of what sets this person apart, what makes them notable - in other words, who besides the article's author seems to think so? Biographies, magazine profiles, newspaper interviews - all those sorts of things with or about the subject help to establish that, in the world at large, they are "notable" enough to have garnered independent, significant coverage. These requirements are particularly important when the subject is a bit obscure to those outside the field. Does this also help? JohnInDC (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


And - you're going to be fine. Your stuff is good. It just misses the mark in some places. Take your time, look around - think about reading and / or contributing to articles outside the Columbia sphere. You'll pick up the nuances in no time. And - hey - don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~). JohnInDC (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely made the criteria much clearer and more concise compared to the one outlined by wikipedia. I will study further other rules of article creating, and thank you so much for taking the time to explain to me this one facet of editing. I will certainly pay attention to the notability factor in the future. When in doubt, I will ask myself the question, "What drastically sets this person apart, and how recognized is this person in other third-person sources." As of right now, my main interest and knowledge lies in Columbia. I will start looking at other topics to edit and contribute. Thank you again! Zoroastrama100 (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even have to be drastic or dramatic. Just notable enough that these third parties took notice and took the time to offer up some coverage. TV interviews too. Just - keep reading. Follow links inside Wikipedia to other policies, etc. You'll accrue knowledge. I remember finding this page helpful - WP:NOT. Maybe you will too. Lots of additional linked pages there as well - good luck! JohnInDC (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:Notable, if you haven't seen it yet. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I appreciate it.

"Columbia College of Columbia University" vs. "Columbia University"

This is one edit that's mystifying me - you've edited a lot of articles to change the former to the latter when, in nearly every case, the sources make it clear that the subject did in fact graduate from Columbia College within in the university. If you were conforming to the sources, or creating a direct link to bypass a redirect within Wikipedia, I'd understand but when you go in the opposite direction (and away from a standalone page on Columbia College), I am not sure the change is warranted. What's your thinking with those? JohnInDC (talk) 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia College is the main undergraduate college of Columbia University. But there are several other colleges with similar name to Columbia College and can be mistaken as such. One great example of that is the name Wheaton College.
Okay, except that the blue Wikilink takes you to the right place if you click it. And if the shorthand is the problem then all you need to do is expand the thing out to "Columbia College of Columbia University" and remove the ambiguity. I don't think you should keep making that change. It isn't generally consistent with the sources and is making the articles less precise. (Likewise the various graduate schools, like "Columbia Law School". Typically, I think, graduate school references are made to the graduate schools.) JohnInDC (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted the articles to be more streamlined. But I'll listen to you, and add the extension instead.

Replaceable fair use File:Mylifeasaquant.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mylifeasaquant.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content 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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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 this non-free 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 non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content 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, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Group rankings

Several editors are concerned that the Consus Group rankings are not notable and are of the opinion that they should not be included in articles. Can you please stop adding them for the time being and join the discussion? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Where is the discussion?Zoroastrama100 (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Hello. The consensus of the discussion was that Consensus Composite does not currently merit listing on the rankings template nor use as a source in articles, per WP:RS. Therefore, please cease from using it on Wikipedia. —Eustress talk 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eustress, I don't see how notability plays a factor at all in this sort of discussion. And I have never had a voice in the discussion. You refrained from telling me the location of the discussion page. If notability is a factor in ranking listing, then wikipedia is indeed inaccurate and biased. The point of encyclopedic sources is to include information, and have the readers make up their views. You have no authority to omit sources based on notability (maybe on creating a page but that is a different story). You should only omit INACCURATE sources. As far as it is concerned, you have not found a valid reason to decide Consus Group as an inaccurate, invalid source. Less notable, yes, but censoring a less notable source here is pure CENSORSHIP. I need further discussion on this matter, and will revert the changes back for now.

I apologize that you were unaware of the discussion going on. You may find my response on the template's talk page, in order to keep the conversation centralized. Parenthetically, please note that once consensus is established, it behooves all editors (dissenting ones included) to conform or else blocks may be issued to editors who defy the community, per WP:DISRUPT. —Eustress talk 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Eustress, but I do hope that reason will prevail over tyranny.Zoroastrama100 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. — DroEsperanto (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Bolognaagreement.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.engineering.columbia.edu/dual-ms-bologna-launches. As a copyright violation, File:Bolognaagreement.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Bolognaagreement.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. GrapedApe (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:NorthwestBuilding.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wikicu.com/File:Moneo.jpg. As a copyright violation, File:NorthwestBuilding.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:NorthwestBuilding.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. GrapedApe (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Columbia-Tsinghua.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://globalcenters.columbia.edu/beijing/. As a copyright violation, File:Columbia-Tsinghua.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Columbia-Tsinghua.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. GrapedApe (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Columbia Engineering Alumni

Category:Columbia Engineering Alumni, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ϫ 09:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feisal Abdul Rauf

Hi. You removed content from Feisal Abdul Rauf with this edit, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. The addition of a new source to an article, after all, does not necessarily require the removal of a previous one. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. If you have any other questions about editing, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lumet

First, placing a picture of a well-known film director in the alumni section does not imply that the University is a film/art school, and don't pull "personal preference" into this argument because that is most certainly a two way street. We obviously both have different definitions of what a good "overview" of alumni accomplishments is. There's an entire subheading dedicated strictly to University accomplishments in the field of scientific research, not to mention the numerous scientists already given in the alumni section. I really have more of an issue with you being so adamant about posting a picture without even putting in the effort to mention Robert Andrews Millikan in the written alumni section or reference his accomplishments with a credible source. This article will never maintain it's Good Article status if people start sticking in information without taking the time to cite it.

Second, the alumni section is supposed to be an overview of accomplished alumni in separate fields, per WP:UNIGUIDE. I agree that science winning alumni should be represented, but the fact that not a single Oscar winner is mentioned out of the thirty who have won the award seems to be an oversight, especially since that is an award/accomplishment listed in the Good Article guidelines.

What it comes down to is that we're bickering over a PICTURE, in other words something that would be sticking out for people to lazy to actually read the section that describes the alumni accomplishments. In reality, we will never be able to give an accurate overview of alumni accomplishments in gallery form because there would be too many pictures! I say that if this picture gallery is going to stir up trouble about which fields of study are over/under represented we should just do this...wipe the slate and just put the top five most notable alumni, which without a doubt would be: Obama, TR, FDR, Hamilton, and Ginsburg. The gallery section would then transcend trying to be an overview of accomplishments and just be relegated to the most recognizable faces, irrespective of their field of study. Neither of us would have our "personal preferences" expressed in pictorial form, but it would make the alumni section cleaner and more prone to being read than just glanced over.

What do you think?

Take a look at these alumni sections to get an idea of what I'm talking about. A lot of them don't even have picture galleries (and this might just be the reason why)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT#Alumni http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University#Notable_people


Nowhereman86 (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pic of Hamilton Hall

I'll give you three...

1. Improperly aligned according to MOS:IMAGES (see bullet number four) 2. Not placed within a thumb. 3. Caption improperly formated

If you want the picture there, you'll have to take out Alma Mater in order generate enough space for the image to be properly aligned. I'd say leave the current picture for two reasons: A) It's a better photo (the exposure is so low on the Hamilton Hall pic that details of the statue cannot even be discerned). B) More emblematic and iconic image of the university that's not present anywhere else in the article, and is appropriate under both the academic and admission section. Thoughts?

These are not valid reason for taking down other editors' images, when it comes to formatting. Wikipedia does not have an established rules for formatting that unless complied warrants removal. If the image distorts the appearance of the article too much, then it is natural to remove such an image. The formatting mistake should be fixed; you can help as another wiki editor. It should not be the basis for removal. I think that there is no image more direct than plastering the image of the admissions office in the admissions section. The revision might not be what you like, but you are not the only wiki editor. It would be nonsensical if I remove your photo, because I find minute details that I do not like.

Thanks

Zoroastrama100 (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hamilton Hall: Part II

Actually, Wikipedia does have a standard of formatting when it comes to images in their articles, so I will again provide you with a link to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. But in case you don't feel like taking the time to read it, which you obviously didn't last time, bullet point number four specifically says, "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other". In addition, take a look at the article's previous GA nomination on April of 2011. The article was failed and the reviewer distinctly adressed this issue by stating, "Avoid side by side pictures. Rather, stagger them on the left and right margins." This isn't a personal preference, but something that the article needs in order to maintain its Good Article status. Nowhereman86 (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Parker

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sean Parker. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


One last chance - I will report you if you revert again - please use discussion and seek consensus - I have never seen a reliable source for the exact date of birth you are edit warring into the article - please use discussion and take your time - I will start making a report now, I prefer not to make it but you seem to just be continuing on in the same warring manner.- Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

request to self revert - prior to reporting

Hi - one last chance - please revert your disputed addition and move to discussion or I will report you, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for your information - 3RR report -

As you have rejected my offers to revert and ignored my warnings and advice I have reported you at the 3RRNB - I will still withdraw the report if in the near future you revert your desired addition and move to colloquial discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zoroastrama100_reported_by_User:Off2riorob_.28Result:_.29

Nomination of Robert M. Bakish for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert M. Bakish 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/Robert M. Bakish 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 template from the top of the article. GrapedApe (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2012 (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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ColumbiaEngineeringLOGO.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]