Misplaced Pages

User talk:David D.: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:31, 8 February 2008 editFrancis Schonken (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users68,468 edits Prem Rawat & Criticism: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:40, 5 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(147 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
|- |-
|{{User:David_D./talktemp}} |{{User:David_D./talktemp}}
|rowspan="2"|{{UWAYOR}} |rowspan="2"|
|- |-
|{{User:David_D./newmessage}} |{{User:David_D./newmessage}}
|} |}
<!-- BEGIN WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE --><!-- This page is automatically archived by Werdnabot-->{{User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Linkhere}} <!--This is an empty template, but transcluding it counts as a link, meaning Werdnabot is directed to this page - DO NOT SUBST IT --><!--Werdnabot-Archive Age-30 DoUnreplied-Yes Target-User_talk:David_D./Archive8--><!--END WERDNABOT ARCHIVAL CODE-->
== Replies ==


== Atulsnishchal ==
Just came to tell you I replied to your question. ]


I noticed that you had unblocked Atul on a "trial basis". Please look into his recent canvassing in 7 unrelated talk pages about certain wikipedia articles, and his call-to-action directed towards certain religious adherents. Not to mention his message was extremely POV in religious lines.


Thanks. --] (]) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey this is Bobby Birch, and Ive already speoken with "Inspector 34" or whatever he calls himself, and please stop deleting my material! I am serious. Just stop. Its an article on an Alaskan school! Give me a break, it means nothing to you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I would also like to add that, this user admitted to using an anon IP to continue his disruptive edits while his account was banned, (that IP itself was blocked due to disruptive edits). The IP in question is 99.235.98.169, and the user admits to using this IP . --] (]) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
== Disruptive user info ==


:Well I cant help it Ragib if you continually think I have bad faith, In my unblock request i mentioned I used this IP. , this is if you genuinely think i have bad faith etc. ] (]) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Response ]


::I knew about the IP. I unblocked you anyway thinking you might turn over a new leaf. Collaborate, wikipedia is not a war and its not about who can recruit the largest army. ] ] 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


== Happy Holidays ==


] (]) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]]


== File:Pin-45rightWC.gif listed for deletion ==
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:Idw --> ] (]) 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


==AfD nomination of Troyster87==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 08:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
==AfD nomination of Troyster87==
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


== Featured Picture delist nom ==


Just to let you know, a ] you nominated for Featured Picture status has been nominated for delist from Featured Pictures. Please see the ] for more information. ~ '''<span style="font-size:small;">]'''</span><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


== Introgression ==


Hi,
first of all nice work to all of you doing the genetics section for wikipedia - it's been extremely valuable for me in my revision.


I'm all new to this Misplaced Pages editing stuff. I don't want to edit an article myself because i'm no expert on the subject and I get the impression that you're associated with the article on introgression so I thought I'd write to you about it.


It seems to be incorrect regarding what introgression is according to what I have read. I was under the impression that introgression is simply the movement of alleles between species or sub species, and that this was usually as a result of hybridisation and subsequent backcrossing (although I think the mechanism by which it occurs is not relevant to what it actually is) - NOT necessarily backcrossing between an individual and its parent i.e. it could occur by a hybrid breeding with individuals from either of the parent species rather than the parents themselves.


As I say i'm no expert on the subject, but this is what I have been led to believe and a few minutes of research seem to confirm this (except if you look in the free online dictionary which seems to think that it is specifically related to backcrossing between offspring and parents).


Anyway I thought that you might be interested. If you know otherwise then please let me know, because it would be useful for my exams!


Cheers


] (]) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)jugglia11


== Thanks ==


Thank you.. for all of your help. Talk to you soon--<span style="font-family:papyrus;">]''' ]'''</span> 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


==Problem==
This might need just a touch of simplification. ] (]) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
:Definitely. But there were so many edits flying around I didn't want to get caught in edit clashes. Also it took me a while to figure out the references, I didn't have time to double check them either. Some seemed out of place so i might have got them wrong. ] ] 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, I'm still a bit overwhelmed with various forms of 'flu! ] (]) 01:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not convinced this article is improving, in fact, quite the reverse - but I'm not sure what to do about it. ] (]) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


== 100/200 ==


Does look like the work of a masters student to you? I think it's fair to say he has cast doubt on the veracity of his claims. I really would like to see a citation on this maximum speed info. See ] for more... ]<small> (]) (])</small>'']'' 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:I was judging the quality of his contribution to the 100m and 200 m pages alone. I did not check the rest. I agree the rest are not great, but his edits on the 100 and 200 agree with everything I have ever read on the sprints. ] ] 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


== Giano ==


I made it exceedingly clear that was not to be done without either my agreement (and then of course anyone else would be free to reblock), or with consensus on ANI. Neither of those things exists. Please restore the block and continue discussion on ANI. ] ] 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


I also ask you to revert your unblock. You admittedly didn't read the full discussion and even worse didn't talk to the blocking admin about it. ] (]) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


I did read the full discussion. This war on productive editors is not helping the encyclopedia quality improve. Endless, very long discussions are wasting huge numbers of hours. This all started due to flagrant plagiarism, something that most RfA contributors either didn't take time to see or chose not to see. That scenario was an exceptional circumstance, and it is understandable why tensions were already high. But instead we want to go the route of many more lost writers hours? I don't want to play that game and I don't think the admins should be playing that game. Talk people of the ledge and persuade people to move to different corners. That is always preferable to using blocks. It should be a last resort. Many will say I ignored consensus but I did read the opinions and I weighed the arguments. I have no horse in this race but it is clear that many others do. Personally, I think that history causes many to wish for punitive admin decisions when that is not always the best for the encyclopedia. If this was really the last straw for many with regard to giano then it might be everyone is too close to the back story. ] ] 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


:For the record, I have never before been involved with Giano, and am just as uninvolved as you, if not more. Again I am asking you to reverse your out of process and out of consensus unblock and continue discussion. ] ] 06:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Your reversal of the block was seriously beyond the realm of policy or good judgment. I strongly advise you to reconsider. We simply don't unblock without talking to the blocking admin or serious consensus that the block was inappropriate, which does not exist here. - ] 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


== Arbitration ==


Hello. I'd like to inform you that I have filed a request for arbitration at ] in which you are referred to by name, though not as an involved party. Best regards, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


== Request for arbitration ==


I've added your name to a ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


:I want to draw your attention to my comment ]. ] ] 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
::Just noticed your edit. As I said, what i have started is half finished. ] ] 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Excellent, I am looking forward to reading it. ] ] 06:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


==Mole (animal)==


Thanks for your help separating the talk pages for the articles named Mole. It helps a lot.
] (]) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Thanks also for your help on the talk page for Mole (Animal). I hope that my argument has been rhetorically successful enough for me to be able to continue work on the article only to have it undone. May I? ] (]) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:If I were you I would wait for the two who originally undid the work to reply. Certainly I'd be interested to see their response. Meanwhile, you could always work on a copy in a sandbox. For example, ]. In general, I think you will find that wikipedia works best if you don't rush things. ] ] 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed. If you, at any point, feel it appropriate, I'd appreciate your giving me a nod, a go-ahead. ] (]) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


== This is the "right forum" ==
I have no other place to address Ed Poor, and an accusation of cowardice like that should be in public, where it belongs, so that the other side cannot ignore the accusation. Please leave any censorship of that accusation to Ed Poor and attend other matters of unencyclopedic content, of which there are regrettably many. ] (]) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:He has already . ] ] 03:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::And that is done to enforce censorship. By protecting his page, you're only assisting in his irresponsible actions.] (]) 05:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


==Flagwaving==
See "Joseph Gold" in this review . ] (]) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


== You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association ==


The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are - suggestions welcome.


If you wish to be elected, please notify me . If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them


Please put all discussion .] (]) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==


I've suggested this be replaced with ] as the FP at ] ] (]) 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


==File copyright problem with File:Itk_GNF1Hthumb.png==
]
Thank you for uploading ]. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes ] very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the '''license''' and the '''source''' of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a ''']''' to the ].


If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following .


If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the ]. Thanks again for your cooperation.<!-- Template:Di-no license-notice --> ] (]) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


== ] nomination of ] ==
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]").


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 ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).


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


'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==


Hi David. I'm less than please with the replacement of the Introduction to evolution article with the current version. There are components that are excellent and could have been incorporated; however, I generated a list of concerns with my limited skill sets. I'm perplexed how an FA article could be completed replaced with a solo act with little or no citations. I feel it reads like an opinion paper and not a scientific article. I'm not prepared to be drug into the quagmire - been there - done that as Random Replicator; so I will precede with caution here. Nor am I suggesting we revisit the good old days of simultaneous FA and Deletion; however, your thoughts on the article talk page would be most appreciated. Cheers!--] (]) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
==GA reassessment of ]==


I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the ]. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at ]. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. ] (]) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


==Request for help==


I am will shortly be posting to ] with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.


===Request to WP:AN===
"I would like to take the article ] to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:


*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of ] who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").


Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Misplaced Pages, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". ] (]) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
==Orphaned non-free image File:Crick.jpg==


<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently ], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. ] 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).


'''PLEASE NOTE:'''


* I am a ], and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
* I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
* If you receive this notice ''after'' the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
* To opt out of these bot messages, add <code><nowiki>{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}</nowiki></code> to your talk page.
*If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off ] and leave a message on ].




Thank you. <!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)




== ] nomination of ] ==


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> ] (]) 12:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


== Your sandbox2 ==


I ran across ] in a Google search for . It appears to be a copy of http://www.uri.edu/cels/bio/plant_anatomy/glossary.html. Unless you are Alison Roberts, it would seem to be a copyright violation. Am I missing something?--] (]) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


:It's a sand box, a guide for future topics. It is a copyright even if not in the main namespace? ] ] 17:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
== File:Fourpillars.jpg listed for deletion ==
A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


== All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion ==


One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at ]. Please see the ] 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/them not being deleted. Thank you.


<small>Delivered by ] on behalf of ] (]) at 17:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC).</small>
<!-- Delivery approved by ]. -->


== MSU Interview ==
S
T'''OP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP changing my page fool! leave the grace page alone. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Dear David D.,
== Article on Fubra ==


My name is Jonathan Obar ], I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
Hi David,


Regarding this article that you have moved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Paulmaunders/Fubra


So a few things about the interviews:
I created the Fubra Limited article as I noticed there were some other existing pages on wikipedia about sites we (Fubra) own, and so I thought it would make sense to create a page about our company and link these articles in.
* Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
* Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
* All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
* All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
* The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


http://en.wikipedia.org/OSx86
http://en.wikipedia.org/House_Price_Crash


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name] instead.
I thought it would be useful to readers to be able to follow the link where our name was mentioned to get some background information on us.


If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
I have read the relevant wikipedia policies but I still think the creation of a page on Fubra by me is justified.


Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
''Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Misplaced Pages:Autobiography, Misplaced Pages:Notability and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest.''


Sincerely,
''Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable.''


Jonathan Obar --] (]) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* Although it was written about a company I am involved with, I think I have written the article from a neutral point of view.
* I have tried to be "encyclopedic" in the sense that I have writtnm about Fubra as broadly as possible, but I must stress that it is very much a work in progress.
* The majority of the facts are 3rd party verifiable, but certain historical details are only known to Brendan and myself personally (such as how we came up with the idea for a particular site). I included these details as I thought they made the article more interesting, and I have seen similar references in other wikipedia articles permitted.


==Science lovers wanted!==
I am happy to go through the article and make sure that any ''Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged'' has a reliable source, as per the Misplaced Pages policies.
{|style="background:#ccc; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;"

|-
Sources
!colspan=2 style="font-size:150%;"|Science lovers wanted!
*
|-
*
|]
*
|Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the ] until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Misplaced Pages about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate ] and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our ]. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the ], and of course, if you share your successes at the ] page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! ] (]) 01:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)|}

==Orphaned non-free image File:Crick.jpg==
=== More on the Fubra article - proof reading ===
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]).
Hi David,
I have added in some references. Could you have a look over what I have done so far and offer your opinion on which specific bits you would keep and which bits you removed.
Thanks in advance!
Paul

==Re:Copyvio of ]==
Give me some time, please. Can you remove the notice?

'''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <sup> ]</sup><sup>]</sup> 17:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

:By the way, only 1.5 sections had plagiarized content in them. So do I still have to do a temp. page? Or can I just redo those sections? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Thank you sooooo much for saving that on a temp page. ---'''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <sup> ]</sup><sup>]</sup> 03:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Yes, please move it as long as you get my recent purging. '''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <sup>''' ]'''</sup> 17:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::::Can you do a B-class article checklist for it? I think it is a B-class, but I'm not sure. Ty --'''<font color="green" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <sup>''' ]'''</sup> 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

== Linking dates ==

Hi David,

See ] for information on why we link dates. --] (]) 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
:At the top of the page it says "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. " So why is it advantageous to link these access dates? It gives the impression there is something useful at the other end, like a way back archive link or such. It just wastes peoples time linking to a page that is not informative. ] ] 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I pointed to that article is that it summarises the reasons for linking dates, including the fact that linked dates are formatted according to user preferences. YMMV. --] (]) 09:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

:If the month is spelled it does not matter which order the days months and years are in. Or am I missing something here? ] ] 09:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

== warning of user:124.182.59.28 ==

Hi. I think your recent warning to this IP was a bit harsh, as it was the first message he recieved and you wrote 'Quit the vandalism please. This is your only warning' I've also noticed you have done it to another user as well, user: 122.109.234.37‎ . Try to calm down a bit, because what you have been saying is the equivelent of a level 4 warning. Also, you can find a list of warning templates ] so you don't have to write them out longhand.

thanks,
]] 09:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

== re:vandalism ==

Well, I see what you mean but I think the link you gave me was no-way a level 4 warning unless the vandal had been warned before. If it was his first warning, I would use <nowiki>{{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}}</nowiki>. Also, I reccommend copying and pasting the warning templates from ] to save time. If you have the ] browser, you could use a program called ]. I use it, and I can make about 30 edits a minuite! It has an automatic system which allows you to warn, revert, tag and report in seconds! I reccommend it.

thanks,
]] 09:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Here's a description of it from it's ]:

''Twinkle is a set of JavaScripts that gives registered users several new options to assist them in common Misplaced Pages maintenance tasks and to help them deal with acts of vandalism. It provides users three types of rollback functions and includes a full library of speedy deletion functions, user warnings, pseudoautomagical reporting of vandals, and much more.'' <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Thanks for the suggestions but I don't go after vandal enough to warrant a tool, I just warn when they hit things on my watch list. Did you see the three IP's vandalizing together? That level four was for cumulative edits. I'm not too keen on the templates so I tend not to use them, they make it look like a robot is warning you. ] ] 09:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


<!--Devinder Sharmahttp://www.farmedia.org/bulletins/bulletin28.htmlhttp://www.springerlink.com/content/lvl52q654443p204/www.agbios.com/docroot/articles/SCRI_GeneFlow.pdf -->

== Merry Christmas ==

] 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]]

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
==Thanks==
Yes, I’m mired in Christmas dinner leftovers at the computer here. :) I hope you’re enjoying your holiday. Thanks, --] (]) 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

== Introduction to Evolution ==

David, would you like to join in on the ] FA attempt. At present our feedback is productive; however, there has been none in attendance that seem to be knowledgeable on the topic. Join in ... I have become use to the abuse; especially if it will lead to a better article. ]. I'm sure you don't remember; but you are the one that advised me to open an account --- over a year ago---- so it is your fault that I spent way to much of my life on the article in the first place! The evidence is the top of my discussion page. Cheers!--] (]) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

== WikiProject Sports Results ==

Hi there! I just thought I'll let you know, I have joined your WikiProject Sports Results. I'll try to help you as much as I can and have been already contributing to swimming results from last year's Aquatic championships and the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I've also taken the libery to restucture your participants list and create a userbox for the project.

{{User WikiProject Sports Results}}
{{-}}

==]==
]Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on ]! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the ] and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to ] status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --]]] 18:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC) {{-}}

== Oveview ==

David, I think it disappeared as a consequence of spacing and formating so time ago. The concern was over clutter if I remember. I don't recall any strong discussion one way or another on the issue. The template seems to be basically been displaced by the "portal" template. I would rather have the biology portal at the bottom and the summary in its place in that it did a good job and was never a source of criticism. I think you would get support for its return. Anything to do with format or spacing fall out of my jurisdiction / skills! I think there is an "experiment page" somewhere in which I played a little with editing it. I'll see if I can find it.--] (]) 11:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


== Re: I hope..... ==

.... was OK with you. ] ] 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
:Of course. Perhaps I should have just gone ahead and done that myself, even. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 17:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

== Re: Prions ==

I didn't say they weren't, merely that the reference was off-topic! The section in question didn't mention prions, and appeared to be entirely about trans-generational methylation/chromatin effects.

Chees, ] ] 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

:I see, i was just going from your edit summary that I saw pop up. ] ] 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

== Introduction to Evolution ==

(Sigh) I new it was going in that direction; there is plenty of blame to share here. I must rethink the use of humor; no damn body gets my jokes. Will this hurt us?--] (]) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think so, at least I'd hope it would be viewed as a minor disagreement rather than a deal breaker. The written word is a mine field when trying to resolve a dispute. I usually try to tread very carefully or leave before i say something too bad, usually someone breaks down before i do which is the only reason i might seem to avoid similar arguments. In my experience any alienation will make compromise impossible give an inch or two and take mile seems to work more often than not. I understand it's hard to give anything sometimes but it's the only way to gain any trust, assuming the other editor is genuinely trying to improve the article, rather than POV pushers. In this case I see no reason to assume it was not a genuine attempt to improve the article, so its a shame it ended that way. ] ] 07:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

::David, lets see if we can come to an agreement of the inclusion of that statement and then we can seek the best supporting document on the actual number. 95 or 98 the implication of scientific support is accomplished either way. I added a version three; blending of sorts. Do you think there is a general support for this? --] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

* {{User Featured Article|Introduction to evolution}} Thanks for your help. Cheers! ] (]) 17:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

==Thanks==
Thanks for the help on the template--{{lx|User:|Angel David|User talk|talk}}16:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

== Hello ==

It seems Filll misrepresented both of us in that case. I'm not sure I "get" the profound implication of your changes (I'll take a second and probably third look) but I doubt they could made the article any "worse" in terms of my relevance to my objection, lol. However, I'm not sure where this leaves my attempts to find a compromise with some of the editors. I'm tempted to ignore it and plough on. I don't care if my efforts are not ''appreciated'' or not ''accepted'', but I'm not happy with ''denigrated''. --] (]) 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:Nothing profound, I just moved stuff around. ] ] 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::See my last post ] --] (]) 20:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Excellent, that sounds like a good plan. I'll put it on my watchlist. ] ] 21:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
:I hope you did not take my comments as a criticism of you? As far as my edits, I was just taking the scattered "controversy" links and consolidating them at the end in one place. Now I am considering the section in the evolution article that you linked to on the FAR and considering if such a section might improve this article or not. I'll give you rationale when I thought some more. My opinions can be a bit of a moving target so bear with me. :) ] ] 21:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
::I've not thrown in the towel yet; if we have reached the wall --- give me heads up so I can stop. Otherwise I'll be attempting to make a statement on the social controversy and contrast to the number that I regret losing. (Although I've always known and perhaps taken delight in its placement in the first section). --] (]) 17:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I'd say we're far from the wall and our efforts, your efforts, are paying off. Even if it stays the same, we at least looked seriously at the issue. Thanks for your efforts, you will deserve this FA if it comes to it. ] ] 17:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
::::David I think we are there; go ahead and commit to one. If you could then create a new section on the talk page and carefully place it there, exactly as it should be written, then I'll scream out in its support and maybe we can get it in the article before FA closes! Thanks so much for your help! --] (]) 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) RR sorry in a hurry!!!
::Didn't mean in a hurry to get it done! I was in a hurry to get to supper. There are a few commentaries on the "Sand boxs" discussion page over the placement. Also, when you xfer it could you make a note that it was heavily discussed on the page; otherwise it may be get buried with all the others. I am almost tempted to say add it in first and let em discuss it after the fact and force the issue. I just hate to see all that hard work get quibbled over to the point no one wishes to insert in fear of stepping on toes. Some flexibility here might actual strengthen the article. If anyone passionately opposed they would undo... right? Ok ... well I'm done; some silence on the talk pages on this FA attempt might be what is needed now. Thanks again! --] (]) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:Yes!--] (]) 11:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
:: :) ] ] 15:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

==Final Version==
Freely edit the ]. Don't be shy. Cheers! ] (]) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

==Research Guide Template==
Hi, David. Thank you for your help moving the Research Guide to a template page and for your advice about the magic word technique. I will experiment with it to see if the Reseach Guide template can be modified so it can apply to any article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Your suggestion works very well so far! I moved the original Watson example from ] to ]. That way, ] will be generic, and can be modified to a similar ] if desired. I am still working on modifications. I will let you know if there are any problems other than the reversed name form.] (]) 07:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The research guide template is up for deletion. I thought you might want to make a on it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==My favourite quote of the week==
. Wonderful. ] (]) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:Exactly why I keep my replies to a minimum. Anything too long and detailed is wasted. ] ] 14:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== Just a note on FAC ==

Re your last comment at the FAC page, politely conducted FACs on non-controversial topics are usually marked by people denoting the shortcomings/mistakes/omissions etc of the candidate articles. It's quite normal behaviour <grins>. It's down to the nominator/s to fix the issues. If the critic chooses to help out, that's a bonus, but it's certainly not expected. In fact, the nominators are usually just glad for the feedback and a chance to improve the article. (Just take a look around ])

On ''this particular'' FAC, which is very heated, I think it's even actually a good idea for critics to restrict themselves to merely pointing out what they consider to be problems, as it'll cause an awful lot less drama. Cheers, --] (]) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:I guess I don't do FAC enough to know the protocol and when i have I usually just go in and make the changes myself. You may well be right with respect to ''this particular'' FAC. I didn't mean to sound critical, I just thought it might be easier to head in and correct stuff rather than line item, especially since all the points made by Amalthus are valid. It's a shame that the editor feels scared off from making the bold edits. ] ] 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
::Heck, I'm an experienced admin, with no creationist baggage and I got frightened off the article talk page, let alone editing the article. I think it's hardly surprising! Btw I hope you realise I wasn't criticising you; I recognised you weren't familiar with FAC. Your contributions have been very calm and useful, thanks. Please do keep it up! --] (]) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:::I definitely did not take it as a criticism. ] ] 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

==Also==
Sorry about creating work for you. I made a mess. Your copy edit was great. Cheers! ] (]) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
:No problem, I thought it better get sorted out sooner than later. ] ] 21:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for recognizing that I'm not trying to sabotage the article or Misplaced Pages. That's a first. It's probably best not to respond to this at all-but especially not at ]. --] (]) 06:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

== Jordan Hasay ==

I'm Jordan's #1 fan k?! Like wtf srsly :(. I'm going to go edit that article within the next 1-2 days :( It needs editting. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] ==

The argument you were making was that, if the "introduction to..." article was deleted, there wouldn't be an introductory article. No-one is saying there shouldn't be an introductory article, merely that the introductory article should be the top-level article on the subject. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:I know it should be, but look at the evolution article. It is not an introductory article, and likely never will be. I assume that is the whole reason why introductory articles have been started in the past and it seems like a very viable idea. Look at articles like ] and ], again these are FA but have been criticised for being too complex. How do we solve this dilema? Writing for different levels is a good approach. Certainly stripping those university level articles to make them more appropriate for a general audience level is not the way to go in my opinion. To serve mutliple audiences is a better solution. ] ] 22:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Britannica has 6 levels of articles. Why can we not have 2?--] (]) 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:Exactly. ] ] 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== Defusing ==
Thanks for your edit to defuse the situation developing on the homeopathy talk page --] (]) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
: And again! Thanks. I should learn how to do this stuff --] (]) 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

== Homeopathy article probation ==

A community discussion has placed homeopathy and related articles on article probation. See ].

I would note that it specificly points out ] and ]. It does not specifically mention ], but a bit of that would be useful in your behaviour on ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:This is very bad timing to be messing around like this and you know it. ] ] 07:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
:Actually, I see you edited that page, and so should be completely aware of this. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
::Right and you're the one pushing the line here. ] ] 07:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm not really involved with the homeopathy business, but I couldn't help finding you a little quick to jump on Adam at ]. Perhaps, instead of bringing up past faults or slights, it would be easier and more harmonious to work towards the future and consensus? That sounds wishy-washier than I mean it to, but I hope you understand. :) ~ ] 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

:I understand but WP:POINT type editing is not going to be helping an already strained relationship between editors on either side of the homeopathy discussion. Adam knows full well what I mean. ] ] 13:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

==Dean West (Black The Ripper)==

Maybe, but ] has an article and he is no bigger in the grime scene than Black The Ripper, if anything, he is not as well known. ] (]) 21:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
:Well that one might be worth deleting too. ] ] 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the one wasting my time...You are the one trying to stop me, or at least prevent me from wasting my time. Does this by defenition not make you a bigger time waster? I would ask kindly that you leave me and my endevours alone, I have done nothing to you... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:One or two key strokes to delete. You do the math. ] ] 04:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== gene template ==

There's a bunch of extra space showing up on some pages. I realized its the bot's setting template adding it. — ] (] | ]) 05:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

== Your motives ==


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You seem to support some level of censorship, and though you personally claim not to. I would suggest that many of your edits are not edits but disguised censors. Leave be what needs to be left, dont touch what needs not to be touched. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Assuming you're {{user|Bobbybirch}} and you're talking about . Your edits are not encyclopedic. It has nothing to do with censorship. ] ] 17:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


==Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity==
== Attack piece ==
]
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return&nbsp;if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated&nbsp;should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --><small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]) &nbsp;·&nbsp;] &nbsp;·&nbsp;</small> 03:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


==Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity==
The material added to ] is an attack piece against me and Misplaced Pages. Coming from a tabloidesque online publication with an history of being a mouthpiece against Misplaced Pages, its editors, and its founder, I wonder why is still in the article and why has not been removed. ] <small>]</small> 21:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
]
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return&nbsp;if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin --> ] (]) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


==Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity==
:I saw the attack piece, it should be removed. I actually thought it had gone already. While you're here, don't you think there should be at least an acknowledgment of criticism in the article. It does does not seem so insignificant to be deleted as undue weight as momento has done on several occassions. ] ] 21:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
]
Following a ] in June 2011, consensus was reached to ] (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the ] and the userright will be restored per the ] (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at ]. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->Regards, — ] ] 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


== ] ==
:: Thank you. It seems to me that due to that article being published, and the numerous reverts, it may be wise to consider requesting protection for a few days at ] As for your question, criticism is ''already'' present in the article, but not in a separate section as per {{tl|criticism section}}. Read the article, and you may find it there. ] <small>]</small> 21:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, that would explain it. I have been looking through the history and it was hard to track the changes. I noticed there was a mediation effort to rewrite around June 2007. ] ] 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Jossie you say that "''criticism is "already" present in the article, but not in a separate section as per {{tl|criticism section}}''" but i cannot find any. Are you sure it has not been removed recently? ] ] 17:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692013717 -->


== WikiProject Athletics Happy New Year ==
== Worthington/Delaney ==


Wishing you a Happy New Year on behalf of ]! You can read of some of the ] at the project talk page (please feel free to add your own thoughts and achievements!). ] 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree to a limited extent; keep in mind I actually AfDed Sarfati earlier (I'm still not really convinced he's notable when we get down to it. He isn't ] or ] for example). I do however think that in order to not let our own pet ideas of what should or shouldn't be included control we do need to use ] in general as a guideline for notability (and in fact we do per ]). Two comments; 1) this does bring up the standard issue that notability_wikipedia is not notability_colloquial (there was a thread back on Wikien a while back about this where people suggested other names other than "notability"). 2) I'd be inclined (and I suspect you would agree) that the sourcing difference between Sarfati and Worthington/Delaney might say more about the media, and presumably isn't saying anything that positive about the media(for that matter why do winners of say the ] get less media coverage than smucks like Delaney?). However, that is essentially a POV, and we cannot let our personal POVs get in the way of what is included and what isn't. ] (]) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
== ] of ] ==
:But is notability really quantifiable? It's always going to be subjective. If ''all'' we need are secondary sources then how come the community is so much more critical for articles of people who are not news worthy (from a curiosity perspective) and yet have sources. How many times do we see AfD,s succeed despite secondary sources? Non famous professor come to mind or buisnessmen. One recent cse I remember was someoe that had four math awards. I don't recall who, I 'll check. ] ] 01:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
]
:: Well, if it isn't we end up with a complete shit-show of everyone just not wanting articles about topics they dislike (I for example would be calling for deletion of pretty much all reality tv and all soap opera related articles). Indeed, one reason we've settled on the primary notability criterion is precisely to deal with that issue. Now, the community as a whole has reached some consensus that there are specific exceptions to this rule (such as ] and ]) but on the whole this works a lot better. than having tens or hundres of different criteria depending on the article type. Finally, if a prof had four major math awards, I'd be strongly inclined to DRV that. ] (]) 01:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So maybe we have a moving target? Should these two (] and ]) not be reinstated based on the current criteria? I just checked back and found that the mathematician survived (]), but how many others like that did not? ] ] 03:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


The file ] has been ]&#32;because of the following concern:
: Those look to me like they might have been decided correctly per ] and ]. ] (]) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>
::Maybe I have not followed this guys story but how does Delaney not qualify as a one event news item? Isn't all the press just reiterations of the same story? ] ] 20:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::: Well no, there was subsequent coverage as he got hired to be a party promoter and his interviews and then he most recently got beaten up by a group of people angry at his earlier behavior. ] (]) 20:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::::So those are independent of his party? Is being a party promoter notable, surely this is not more notable than any other scrap? He got into a fight, surely this is not more notable than any other scrap? It's all fluff, and I think you know this is not my opinion it's a documented fact. Can't we just merge him into ]? Just because the media have a slow week is no reason for wikipedia to jump on every headline. ] ] 21:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
== BobbyBirch and Friends ==


You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
I am most impressed with your horticultural connection between BobbyBirch and I, though I am not impressed with your answer. You claim to assume that BobbyBirch and I are the same person. I am sure you are very aware of the old adage, when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me, well in this case it makes an ass out of you. I am not BobbyBirch, though I am in contact with him. You say that I am not encyclopedic, I beg to differ, seeing how it is that you have no personal experience with the matters of which we speak, your opinion is not legitimate. When you take something away from something else do to a certain motive, it is called CENSORSHIP. You taking my thoughts and additions down is qualified as Vandalism and Censorship. I am unimpressed with you very clumsy attempts to make our page upright and none vandalized. I am sure somewhere in India they thank you. But not here, your just another loser sitting behind a computer screen...just let it go.. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
== Prem Rawat & Criticism ==


<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
My interest in Prem Rawat is let's say ''low''. At the time I only got involved as someone neutral, for two reasons:
* I'm Dutch-speaking, and contributor Andries (quite "involved" at the time) needed help on sorting out some of the ''Dutch''-language references he wanted to use per ]. I acted as an uninvolved translator, also giving some advise on solidity of sources, and which quotes imho made more sense to be selected.
* My involvement in ], and a ''sub''-page of that essay and of the ] guideline. That sub-page was I believe (but don't shoot me if I'm wrong) created by Jossi. It is now deleted. The name of that now deleted page: ]. That page had as a goal to get rid of all "Criticism of..." pages apart from a very few exceptions. I never liked that page very much, but because of Jossi's strong feelings at the time I rather collaborated in trying to cut the too distressful edges from its content (bringing it more in line with ]), then that I tried to get it deleted altogether (which however happened I don't know when).
For Prem Rawat & criticism, please proceed as you think useful. I'm still available for the above two aspects if you ask me directly. I don't have Prem Rawat-related articles on my watchlist, so I'm sorry I have to tell I had to read in "the press" so to say what had been happening to that article and the "criticism" counterpart since I edited them a few times over a year ago. --] (]) 17:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:40, 5 March 2023

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————

Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

You may here

Atulsnishchal

I noticed that you had unblocked Atul on a "trial basis". Please look into his recent canvassing in 7 unrelated talk pages about certain wikipedia articles, and his call-to-action directed towards certain religious adherents. Not to mention his message was extremely POV in religious lines.

Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that, this user admitted to using an anon IP to continue his disruptive edits while his account was banned, (that IP itself was blocked due to disruptive edits). The IP in question is 99.235.98.169, and the user admits to using this IP here. --Ragib (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I cant help it Ragib if you continually think I have bad faith, In my unblock request i mentioned I used this IP. , this is if you genuinely think i have bad faith etc. Atulsnischal (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I knew about the IP. I unblocked you anyway thinking you might turn over a new leaf. Collaborate, wikipedia is not a war and its not about who can recruit the largest army. David D. (Talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Pin-45rightWC.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pin-45rightWC.gif, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Troyster87

An article that you have been involved in editing, Troyster87, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J Stalin (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Troyster87 (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture delist nom

Just to let you know, a photo you nominated for Featured Picture status has been nominated for delist from Featured Pictures. Please see the delist nom for more information. ~ ωαdεstεr16♣T 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Introgression

Hi, first of all nice work to all of you doing the genetics section for wikipedia - it's been extremely valuable for me in my revision.

I'm all new to this Misplaced Pages editing stuff. I don't want to edit an article myself because i'm no expert on the subject and I get the impression that you're associated with the article on introgression so I thought I'd write to you about it.

It seems to be incorrect regarding what introgression is according to what I have read. I was under the impression that introgression is simply the movement of alleles between species or sub species, and that this was usually as a result of hybridisation and subsequent backcrossing (although I think the mechanism by which it occurs is not relevant to what it actually is) - NOT necessarily backcrossing between an individual and its parent i.e. it could occur by a hybrid breeding with individuals from either of the parent species rather than the parents themselves.

As I say i'm no expert on the subject, but this is what I have been led to believe and a few minutes of research seem to confirm this (except if you look in the free online dictionary which seems to think that it is specifically related to backcrossing between offspring and parents).

Anyway I thought that you might be interested. If you know otherwise then please let me know, because it would be useful for my exams!

Cheers

Jugglia11 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)jugglia11

Thanks

Thank you.. for all of your help. Talk to you soon--Michael (Talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem

This might need just a touch of simplification. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. But there were so many edits flying around I didn't want to get caught in edit clashes. Also it took me a while to figure out the references, I didn't have time to double check them either. Some seemed out of place so i might have got them wrong. David D. (Talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm still a bit overwhelmed with various forms of 'flu! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this article is improving, in fact, quite the reverse - but I'm not sure what to do about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

100/200

Does this look like the work of a masters student to you? I think it's fair to say he has cast doubt on the veracity of his claims. I really would like to see a citation on this maximum speed info. See talk:200 metres for more... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I was judging the quality of his contribution to the 100m and 200 m pages alone. I did not check the rest. I agree the rest are not great, but his edits on the 100 and 200 agree with everything I have ever read on the sprints. David D. (Talk) 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano

I made it exceedingly clear that was not to be done without either my agreement (and then of course anyone else would be free to reblock), or with consensus on ANI. Neither of those things exists. Please restore the block and continue discussion on ANI. Prodego 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I also ask you to revert your unblock. You admittedly didn't read the full discussion and even worse didn't talk to the blocking admin about it. RxS (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did read the full discussion. This war on productive editors is not helping the encyclopedia quality improve. Endless, very long discussions are wasting huge numbers of hours. This all started due to flagrant plagiarism, something that most RfA contributors either didn't take time to see or chose not to see. That scenario was an exceptional circumstance, and it is understandable why tensions were already high. But instead we want to go the route of many more lost writers hours? I don't want to play that game and I don't think the admins should be playing that game. Talk people of the ledge and persuade people to move to different corners. That is always preferable to using blocks. It should be a last resort. Many will say I ignored consensus but I did read the opinions and I weighed the arguments. I have no horse in this race but it is clear that many others do. Personally, I think that history causes many to wish for punitive admin decisions when that is not always the best for the encyclopedia. If this was really the last straw for many with regard to giano then it might be everyone is too close to the back story. David D. (Talk) 05:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I have never before been involved with Giano, and am just as uninvolved as you, if not more. Again I am asking you to reverse your out of process and out of consensus unblock and continue discussion. Prodego 06:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reversal of the block was seriously beyond the realm of policy or good judgment. I strongly advise you to reconsider. We simply don't unblock without talking to the blocking admin or serious consensus that the block was inappropriate, which does not exist here. - Philippe 06:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello. I'd like to inform you that I have filed a request for arbitration at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Moni3 in which you are referred to by name, though not as an involved party. Best regards,  Sandstein  14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I've added your name to a request for arbitration. Jehochman 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to draw your attention to my comment Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Block review/unblocking procedures and protocol. Prodego 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed your edit. As I said, what i have started is half finished. David D. (Talk) 06:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, I am looking forward to reading it. Prodego 06:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mole (animal)

Thanks for your help separating the talk pages for the articles named Mole. It helps a lot. Chrisrus (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also for your help on the talk page for Mole (Animal). I hope that my argument has been rhetorically successful enough for me to be able to continue work on the article only to have it undone. May I? Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If I were you I would wait for the two who originally undid the work to reply. Certainly I'd be interested to see their response. Meanwhile, you could always work on a copy in a sandbox. For example, User:Chrisrus/Mole. In general, I think you will find that wikipedia works best if you don't rush things. David D. (Talk) 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. If you, at any point, feel it appropriate, I'd appreciate your giving me a nod, a go-ahead. Chrisrus (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the "right forum"

I have no other place to address Ed Poor, and an accusation of cowardice like that should be in public, where it belongs, so that the other side cannot ignore the accusation. Please leave any censorship of that accusation to Ed Poor and attend other matters of unencyclopedic content, of which there are regrettably many. 71.193.206.116 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He has already set the precedent. David D. (Talk) 03:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
And that is done to enforce censorship. By protecting his page, you're only assisting in his irresponsible actions.71.193.206.116 (talk) 05:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Flagwaving

See "Joseph Gold" in this review link. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Romanian_hay.jpg

I've suggested this be replaced with File:Romania_Hay_better_version.jpg as the FP at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Romanian hay.jpg Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Itk_GNF1Hthumb.png

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Itk_GNF1Hthumb.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). 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) 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution

Hi David. I'm less than please with the replacement of the Introduction to evolution article with the current version. There are components that are excellent and could have been incorporated; however, I generated a list of concerns with my limited skill sets. I'm perplexed how an FA article could be completed replaced with a solo act with little or no citations. I feel it reads like an opinion paper and not a scientific article. I'm not prepared to be drug into the quagmire - been there - done that as Random Replicator; so I will precede with caution here. Nor am I suggesting we revisit the good old days of simultaneous FA and Deletion; however, your thoughts on the article talk page would be most appreciated. Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Photosynthetic reaction centre

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Photosynthetic reaction centre/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Misplaced Pages, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crick.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


AfD nomination of Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wolfview (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Your sandbox2

I ran across User:David D./sandbox2 in a Google search for text added to Plant Cell. It appears to be a copy of http://www.uri.edu/cels/bio/plant_anatomy/glossary.html. Unless you are Alison Roberts, it would seem to be a copyright violation. Am I missing something?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a sand box, a guide for future topics. It is a copyright even if not in the main namespace? David D. (Talk) 17:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Fourpillars.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fourpillars.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ronhjones  22:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 17:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

MSU Interview

Dear David D.,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Misplaced Pages administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talkcontribs) 14:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Misplaced Pages about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)|}

Orphaned non-free image File:Crick.jpg

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Crick.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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. Skier Dude (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. (X! · talk)  · @172  ·  03:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Misplaced Pages:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Athletics Happy New Year

Wishing you a Happy New Year on behalf of WikiProject Athletics! You can read of some of the project's achievements this year at the project talk page (please feel free to add your own thoughts and achievements!). SFB 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FlyFlower.jpg

Notice

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

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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

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

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)