User talk:Johnrpenner
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
<removing bitterness> <jump thru the hoop.. try again>
Image copyright problem with Image:Ark-Records-Globe-Logo.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Ark-Records-Globe-Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Jeff-Johnson-Door.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Jeff-Johnson-Door.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Ark-Records-Globe-Logo.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Ark-Records-Globe-Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 16:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Jeff-Johnson-Door.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:Jeff-Johnson-Door.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Trs80-Meteor.png[edit]
Image:Trs80-Meteor.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trs80-Meteor.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Trs80-Meteor.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to scare you off, but...[edit]
I'm afraid I was following Wikipedia policy. According to WP:BLP, if an article deals with living people, as Religious debates over Harry Potter does, any information added without a source that could prove controversial must be removed, or Wikipedia could face libel action. I understand what you're trying to say, and I think it's a useful distinction to make, but in order to make it you would have to cite a poll or some other third-party source. Otherwise you're just stating an opinion. Wikipedia isn't a place to write essays; everything has to be verifiable, especially when it concerns a topic as controversial as this one. Serendipodous 07:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Goethe & auctions[edit]
Hey--It's a neat point about Goethe, but that's probably not the best place for it. I'd suggest putting it in Vickrey auction, and reference more formal sources than the blog. Two sources are:
- "Goethe's Second-Price Auction" by Moldovanu & Tietzel, Journal of Political Economy, 1998. It's available on jstor [1], or as a working paper (i.e. not yet peer-reviewed, but free to download) at [2].
- Other Vickrey auction history in "Vickrey Auctions in Practice: From Nineteenth-Century Philately to Twenty-First-Century E-Commerce" by Lucking-Reiley, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2000. It's available on jstor [3], or for free (not sure about review status) at [4].
Cretog8 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Jeff-Johnson-Mike-Demkowicz.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Jeff-Johnson-Mike-Demkowicz.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Waldorf growth chart[edit]
- John - I was looking at your chart; it works well most of the way through but is misleading at both ends, where the 5-year interval between data points is either much longer or somewhat shorter. Perhaps there should be 3 gaps between the first two points (1916 and '35) leaving room for 1920, 25 and 30, as there were in the previous chart. The end-point is also bothersome; it might be better to leave it off and just mention the current number in the article.
- Incidentally, the official Waldorf list changed; at one point it listed more than 1,000 schools and then was reduced again. Puzzling. Hgilbert (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
hi - thanks - any idea where i could get all the numbers for all the years?? i was just going by the illustration that was there before, and trying to make it better than it was -- if we had the original numbers from somewhere, it'd sure make it easier to get the chart right. :-) Johnrpenner (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry; didn't see this before. Data is sparse for most of the years; my original image listed the sources I used. hgilbert (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Problems with upload of File:Keith Green Egypt Flyer.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Keith Green Egypt Flyer.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Image permission problem with Image:Keith Green Egypt Flyer.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Keith Green Egypt Flyer.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:Keith Green Egypt Flyer.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Keith Green Egypt Flyer.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Waldorf schools growth chart[edit]
Now that we're using your chart, perhaps you would be willing to update it at least through to 2010 (then we could wait a few years, since we're charting five-year intervals). The 2009 figure is 994 schools world-wide; see the official school list. I hope this is all right to ask of you! hgilbert (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are the numbers:
Year 1925 1930 1935 1938 1945 1950 1955 1962 1965 1971 1975 1980 Schools 7 15 n/a 16 n/a n/a 41 66 n/a 95 150 220
Year 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 Schools 362 480 600 800 923 994
Schopenhauer and Goethe[edit]
Thank you for replacing my neologism "oppositely" with the legitimate adverb "conversely." I disagree, however, with your rejection of Schopenhauer's claim that Goethe investigated external stimuli instead of the observing subject's physiology. I originally had:
Newton, Goethe, and all other color theorists began by investigating light and colored bodies in order to find the cause of color. They should have started with an investigation of the effect, the given phenomenon, the changes in the eye.
You changed it to:
Newton and almost all other color theorists began by investigating light and colored bodies in order to find the cause of color. Schopenhauer followed Goethe in starting an investigation of the effect, the given phenomenon, the changes in the eye.
Schopenhauer's words were:
Newton's fundamental mistake was simply that he, without obtaining some accurate knowledge of the effect according to its inner reference and relation, was in too much of a hurry to go in search of the cause. Yet this same mistake is common to all theories of color from the oldest to the latest of Goethe [ist dasselbe Versehn allen Farbentheorien von den ältesten bis auf die letzte von Goethe gemeinsam].
As you can see, Schopenhauer included Goethe as the latest in that group of color theorists who ignored the effect of color on the observer's body and, instead, began by investigating the external stimuli that caused the effect.
Schopenhauer asserted:
All speak of what modifications either the surface of a body or what modifications light…must undergo…. Instead of this, it is obvious that the correct way is first to turn our attention to the sensation itself, in order to explore whether we might not elicit from its nature and regular conformity that of which it consists in and by itself, hence what it is physiologically. Obviously such an accurate knowledge of the effect, which is the point in question when speaking of colors, will furnish us with data for finding the cause, in other words, for discovering the external stimulus that excites such a sensation.
Do you disagree with Schopenhauer? Isn't it true that Goethe began by investigating the stimuli that caused the sensation of color in the eye? Schopenhauer claimed that the investigation of color should start with the knowledge of the eye's response to the external stimuli. Schopenhauer insisted on the subjective nature of color in that it exists in the eye, not in external objects. He criticized Goethe's Realism and its unconcern with the constitution of the observer. Goethe investigated the relationships between darkness and light. In so doing, he assumed that colors exist outside of the observing subject, in external objects. Schopenhauer, on the contrary, claimed that color exists in the observer's nervous system. (Color does not have to be caused by light reflecting off of an object. It can even be caused by pressure on the eyeball or by a blow to the head.)Lestrade (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
> Thank you Lestrade, for your thoughtful responses - I changed it because I thought it had been arbitrary that Newton & Goethe had been lumped together at the start of the sentence - and I've understood that Newton & Goethe took two quite different approaches to colour (i.e. Newton chose the analytic method, and according to Goethe, "Newton's error... was trusting math over the sensations of his eye". from what i've read of Schopenhauer, I understood that he thought Goethe to have provided a phenomenal account, without providing a theory (which Schopenhauer was happy to furnish) - so with these two thoughts in mind, I made the change -
yet now -- having seen your text here, I think I must defer -- since Schopenhauer is the one who put Goethe and Newton together (that is very curious for me! ;-) -- i'd like to revert the edit, but somehow not quite sure of how to change it now, because my Newton/Goethe reservations. i'm open to whatever you suggest. thx for your good scholarship. :-) all the best. 216.121.237.69 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Newton and Goethe were not absolutely different from each other. Some of their characteristics were similar, other characteristics were different. For example, they were different from each other because Newton used experiments in his investigations whereas Goethe would only be a non–interfering observer of existing conditions. Schopenhauer claimed that they were similar to each other because they both studied color by researching the external (to the observer's nervous system) stimuli that caused color. Schopenhauer's method was the opposite. He studied color by researching the internal effects that occur in the observer's nervous system and sense organ when color is experienced. As a Kantian Transcendental Idealist, Schopenhauer believed that the way that an observer experiences the world is conditioned by the way that his/her sense organs and nervous system are constituted. He claimed that the objective is conditioned by the subjective.Lestrade (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
In the article, you wrote "it seeks to understand organisms in terms of their development, and not just for their suitability to a particular purpose". I can't see how mainstream biology can be described like this. Biology may ascribe a "purpose" to an organ within an animal, but not to individual animals or species. It's a basic tenet in evolutionary biology that evolution do not have a purpose. I am aware that Goethe is seen as an opponent to the version of science Descartes and Newton championed, but I think this is missing the point somehow. EverGreg (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
External links[edit]
Hi, when you insert an external link into an article without putting <ref> tags around it, you disrupt the footnote numbering system. Please don't do that. — goethean ॐ 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Napster-MacOS9-2001.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Napster-MacOS9-2001.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, PChess, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PChess. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Joal Beal (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Napster-MacOS9-2001.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Napster-MacOS9-2001.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Trs80-Seadragon.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Trs80-Seadragon.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Stereolab[edit]
→ in re: Not Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You posted the following on my user talk page:
hey - why'd you delete the stereolab 'not music' page!? this is useful information that i went to wikipedia to look up - and now its been deleted.. by you. @#$@#$ you just made wikipedia less useful. grrr. :-P Johnrpenner (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC) [diff]
The sole author created and blanked it in three edits between 16:45 and 16:55, 25 December (UTC), it was tagged {{db-blanked}} per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7 by another editor, after which it was included in the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. – Athaenara ✉ 22:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Ark-Mobile-Orig.png listed for deletion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ark-Mobile-Orig.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Steiner's coming out[edit]
I hope you don't mind; rather than the phrase 'coming out', I've tried to supply a brief history of the progression involved. This seems to me to be both more detailed and less prone to misunderstanding, as he didn't really announce himself as a spiritual figure, but just began quietly talking and writing about relevant themes. Let me know if you have any concerns with the new wording, please. hgilbert (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
ya, i saw your edits — you've improved it. :-) the reason i used the phrase was i think, due to steiner using the phrase in the autobiography(citation needed) – but of course, that is a translation. from steiner's autobiography, he made it clear that it was really a struggle for him to actually come to a point where he would take the step where he would 'come out' with his ideas on spiritual science (instead of remaining the respectable goethe and schiller scholar as he had thus far presented himself in the world) — and the event of this was particularly the talk about 'goethe's secret revelation' on the lily and the green snake in 1899, and his subsequent invitation by the brockdorf's to speak to the theosophists.
thanks for taking the time to do a good edit.. blessings. Johnrpenner (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Theory of Colours - Newton and Goethe - Steiner's chapter III (or VIII)[edit]
Revision at 14:51, 23 October 2012[5]: Johnrpenner, may be you can help with this? The article is quoting (an English translation of) Steiner about Newton vis-a-vis Goethe, and would benefit if the passage in Newton's Opticks which corresponds to the quotation from Steiner were identified. But a search is hampered by not knowing wherebouts to look in the Opticks or how close is the wording of the English translation of Steiner's paraphrase in German. If there is no such single passage, perhaps some explanation should be put in the main text of the article, or in the footnote?Qexigator (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
good show — steiner's explanation was the shortest best explanation i could find at the time — in the ensuing years, better sources may have appeared on the internets.. i was very happy to see that newton's work is now available online, and that you were able to link to it at the newton project — thx for finding the links and improving the article!! :-D Johnrpenner (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
November 2013[edit]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Theory of Colours may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 1810, with 250 copies on grey paper and 500 copies on white paper. It contained three sections: i) a didactic section in which Goethe presents his own observations, ii) a polemic section in which he makes his case against Newton, and iii) a historical section.
- that he lacks." (John Tyndall, 1880)<ref>Popular Science Monthly/Volume 17/July 1880) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_17/July_1880/Goethe's_Farbenlehre:_
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Opticks may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_17/July_1880/Goethe's_Farbenlehre:_Theory_of_Colors_II</ref>)
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Norman Milliken second nomination for deletion[edit]
Norman Milliken Magnolia677 has made a nomination for deletion of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Milliken_(2nd_nomination) Magnolia677 has made a previous nomination for deletion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Milliken You reviewed the article and judged as a keep. Magnolia677's second nomination deletion is unchanged. The article's content is unchanged since the last nomination for deletion. Magnolia677 reasons for deletion in the second nomination for deletion are the same as the reasons that were rejected in the last discussion around the first nomination for deletion by Magnolia677. This should be a speedy keep. Or lets do the discussion all over again. Unionville(talk99.231.130.238 (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Unionvllle
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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Meteor Mission II for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meteor Mission II 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/Meteor Mission II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]
Hello, Johnrpenner. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Johnrpenner. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]
Hello, Johnrpenner. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Prism-lightOverDark-isBlue-goethe.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated 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) 01:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Removing other editor's talk page comments[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Medium is not a reliable source to establish notability[edit]
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
May 2023[edit]
Your edit to Theory of Colours has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)