User talk:Eekerz

Hello, Eekerz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Spotty Divide (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eekerz. Please don't mark cleanups of dab pages as minor edits; minor edits are for things that are not possibly controversial (WP:MINOR). I reverted your change for the "The Take" disambiguation -- the new additions were "partial title matches", and not things ambiguous with "take". Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to The Take, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. At the time I read it, the article did not say his death was a hoax. Permission to remove your comment on my talk page? I don't want to be labeled as a vandal. Saumoarush (talk) 08:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Saumoaurush[reply]

Eh, why not keep it as a reminder to always site a reliable source (especially about something as major as a death)? :P -Eekerz (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bill Cosby. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Bill Cosby. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eekerz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I didn't violate the 3-revert rule since I didn't revert more than 3 times. Also, you didn't block User:Binksternet as well (despite he reverting 3 times too) so that's hardly fair to only block me...

Decline reason:

Please re-read WP:EW, as you do not need to pass WP:3RR to be blocked. As noted, the other editor is exempt from block as they were reverting information contrary to WP:BLP. Please focus on your editing behaviour, and not that of others. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Your edits also contravened the biographies of living persons policy, by introducing controversial material about the subject based on an unreliable source. As such, the other editor was exempt from the three-revert rule. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the deletion tag you placed on Category:Open world video games, because you didn't create the nomination for deletion. If you still think it should be deleted, renamed, or merged, feel free to tag it and immediately create the nomination on that day's nomination page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never added a deletion tag to it but a merge tag, but whatever. -Eekerz (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way - I removed your tag because you didn't create the discussion page. If you still think it should be done, feel free to nominate it as I told you above. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than revert back and forth, we should discuss this.

Regarding the linking of jumping in Q*bert, I believe this is an example of overlinking. Such linking should be avoid per the WP:OVERLINK, which states: "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, and dates."

I admit jumping is a part of the gameplay, but I don't think it is the most important aspect like changing the color of the cubes or avoiding the enemies. For example, the characters could simply float from cube to cube instead of jumping. Regardless, the term jump is such a common, simple English word that most readers already understand. I also don't think the article provides extra information that applies the video game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

While some enemies could float, Qbert (the player character and the name of the game itself) mostly jumped (except when landing on the moving thing that took him to the top). Just because a word is simple doesn't mean it's not encyclopedic and it wouldn't be interesting to investigate further when relevant to the topic... WP:OL, like most Wikipedia policy, is vague, obtuse, and subjective. -Eekerz (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I wasn't clear with my example. I meant that the mode of movement from one cube to the other was arbitrary. The designers could have just as easily made Q*bert float instead of jump.

In regard to being relevant to the topic, I don't believe the term is relevant given the content on jumping. While some policies have subjective areas, WP:Linking is quite clear: "Links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase our readers' understanding of the topic at hand." The content in jumping, while interesting, is a tangent from the content in Q*bert. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Part of Qbert's appeal[1], frustration)[2], and challenge[3] is its jumping. (Will find more sources about its jumping later when I have more time if you're still not convinced.) I seriously doubt it would have been as popular as it was (and still is?) if Qbert just slid/strafed/walked/climbed the blocks... -Eekerz (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact Old-Wizard and Digg don't satisfy WP:RS, stating that hopping made the game fun does not address the main point I'm trying to make:

"The article about jumping does not provide any additional information to the topic about the Q*bert video game."

Wikilinks are meant to provide extra information that is too detailed to include in the article. An English reader is familiar enough with the concept of jumping that they don't need any explanation. The article goes into details about the physics of actually jumping, which does not add to their understanding about the video game.

If the article covered how jumping works in a 2D graphical environment, then I wouldn't argue. However, that is not the case, nor should it be. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oh please. Not every link has to be that relevant to the article linked from in order to justify a link being established. While, yes, an article on video game jumping (or just video game moves in general--which, incidentally, was created years ago at action (gaming) but was aggressively targeted for deletion), until then, the general jumping article will have to suffice.

Category:Competitive video gaming techniques contains various jumping actions/moves that, combined with action point, actions per minute, combo (video gaming), finishing move, signature move, special attack, etc, could still make a viable article (or at least a list/category). -Eekerz (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the fact that most of those articles lack proper sourcing... Actually no, jumping does not have to suffice. I hate to sound like a broken record, but just because a word can be linked, doesn't mean it should. Links should provide better context to the reader. While you disagree, the Wikipedia community has decided that overlinking should be avoided and made it a part of the encyclopedia's manual of style. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Forgive me for saying this, but I think that this catagory is a case of WP:Overcategorization. It's interesting, but it's a trivial, or non-defining gameplay aspect. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crafting is a major gameplay element of many MMORPGs (which not all have) so I felt the need to distinguish it. I suppose it could be a list but then some might claim it's not worthy of that either... —Eekerz ^(t) 11:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please discuss on talk page when 2 editors are against you and avoid the 3revert line as in WP:3RR. The refs you had are not Wiki-reliable references as in WP:RELY. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of the policy on external links when adding them to articles, in the case of the thief wikia it is disallowed per WP:ELNO: open wikis should be avoided except "those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." This has also been discussed on the article talk page and there is a consensus not to link it. Rehevkor ✉ 13:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Most Amazing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pointless, irrelevant dab page which deals with non-existent ambiguities - "In Search of the Most Amazing Thing" could never be confused with "The Most Amazing Man Who Ever Lived".

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted Most Amazing as a partial title match list: no meaningful, substantive content. See also previous discussions on similar lists:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as painted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurking
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On wheels

-- JHunterJ (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saumoarush has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. :) What's that for? —Eekerz ^(t) 05:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:St6-klingon blood.png's license says it's usable on Wikipedia--meaning any page. —Eekerz ^(t) 20:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing says "This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, ... It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contentson the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Read WP:FAIRUSE, which says: "It's used for a purpose that can't be fulfilled by free material." It is possible to photo a blood squirt. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an example of a blood squirt in a major motion picture (and a fairly notable one too given CGI tech at the time). What's the big deal about using the image FOR CRITICAL COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE FILM AND ITS CONTENTS on a page describing an effect used in the film? —Eekerz ^(t) 03:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Add it in the article, but also give a fair use rationale on the image page saying how is not replaceable. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 02:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retain (disambiguation). 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) 01:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Good looking, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good looking. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite sources for contested material, such as material which has been lying around for years and years and obviously cannot be adequately attributed to reliable third party publications. Commenting out large swaths of text is equally undesirable and I suggest you read User:Uncle_G/On_sources_and_content#There_are_no_exceptions_to_everything. If you'd like to move it to the talk page for discussion feel free, but until sources can be found, this problematic material stays out of actual article space. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have nominated divine countenance at DYK. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On June 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Divine countenance, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reinsert copyright violations. The anon took the content from here, someone's (or his/her) personal anti-abortion website. So, besides being a copyvio, it is also absolute fringe rubbish unusable as a source. Prolog (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article has sources too. What's the problem? —Eekerz ^(t) 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope reading WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV will make you understand the problem. Prolog (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the article has references from http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/ (about The Association of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology & Health), Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews (cited in several Wikipedia articles), the Journal of Perinatal Medicine (cited in 3 Wikipedia articles), Journal of Women’s Health (cited in 2 Wikipedia articles), and others so, again, what's the problem? The sources are verifiable, medically reliable, not fringe theories, and of a neutral point-of-view. —Eekerz ^(t) 17:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research, commentary and/or personal opinions on a medical topic posted on some religious/anti-abortion activist's personal blog are not in any way reliable. The writer of that "article" self-describes as a "Licensed and Ordained Minister by Destiny Network International. She is working on her MA in Christian Counseling. She is a woman who passionately peruses the heart of God. She speaks, teaches, and dances from a deep heart of devotion to GOD." Are you beginning to see the light? Prolog (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that article's neutrality, its references are still, again, verifiable, medically reliable, not fringe theories, and of a neutral point of view. Are you getting it yet? —Eekerz ^(t) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are and some of them are not. Do you have access to the reliable ones and plan to personally verify what they contain, or why on earth are you still hooked on that fringe blog? When unreliable source X makes claims about reliable source Y, X is still completely useless and Y might or might not be of interest to the encyclopedia. Prolog (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given you links to 2 direct links to references used in the blog article, and 2 other sources are also used on Wikipedia so I assume they are verifiable, reliable, and credible too. I haven't verified all of the blog article's references but some others are to a dictionary and bible verses; others, as were used in neonatal perception, look legitimate--although page numbers are needed for the 1 book (Feldman) and training manual allegedly created by Peggy Hartshorn PhD (per [3] and [4], president--at least in 2008--of Heartbeat International). The point is, just because you may not agree with what the blog article says, you cannot dispute its verifiable, reliable, and credible references. —Eekerz ^(t) 23:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...given you..."? I'm not expanding the article. I have zero interest on anything written on this or the countless other anti-science fringe blogs written by some sort of extremists, besides preventing that crap from ever appearing on our articles. So what do the "2 direct links" say? Put up or shut up, as they say. Heartbeat International, by the way, is a Catholic anti-abortion organization. It is not a reliable source on neonatal perception, or any other medical topic. I, and other admins and long-time users, have a tendency to dismiss blog posts per WP:RS. If you are serious, please take this to WP:RSN. Prolog (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the links for yourself. With the possible exception of the Heartbeat International reference, all of the other journal, book, and dictionary/bible verse references are credible and reliable. You're the one who has an issue with the blog article's references, which I am trying to tell you are legit. Before mindlessly denouncing all blog posts (which is not against WP:RS, incidentally), do some actual research to see if the references used in a blog post are legit. —Eekerz ^(t) 03:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already agreed some of the references there are reliable sources. Where are you going with this? And again, I am not in the habit of wasting my time on anything written by someone on a blog with a fringe agenda. To me, the concept of using that kind of website as a source for any kind of information is thoroughly unencyclopedic. You are free to have different standards, but don't expect me to do the work. Prolog (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you're the one who has an issue with the blog, which I am trying to show you is legitimately sourced (again, with the possible exception of the Heartbeat International training manual reference--which, incidentally, isn't even referenced to in a non-neutral way, if you bother to actually read the blog post). Have you even actually read the blog post? If you get past the introduction and go to "The Beginning Stages of Life" up to before "Personal Reflection", you'll see it is quite neutral and heavily sourced with verifiable, reliable, credible sources (minus the possible exception of the Heartbeat International training manual which I haven't yet been able to find to verify it). —Eekerz ^(t) 22:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not read it, as it is of no interest to me or this encyclopedia. Are you claiming that the references make the blog post a reliable source, or why are we still discussing this? Prolog (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oi vey. I have already stated why all but 1 (questionable) reference listed in that blog post is verifiable, reliable, and credible. The information added to neonatal perception (which you removed) was sourced with those verifiable, reliable, and credible resources and not the blog itself. Hence, the deleted section should be restored. —Eekerz ^(t) 06:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked this once and your response seemed ambiguous to me: Do you have access to these reliable sources and have personally verified the content? This editor's referencing is not to be trusted. The blogging preacher's referencing is not to be trusted. Action Life Inc Ottawa, by the way, is another clearly unreliable source there. Prolog (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again (since you don't seem to read very carefully, let alone actually click on the links I have previously provided), I already gave you links to sources used in the blog article that I have specifically verified. And, again, like I previously told you, the rest of the sources are verifiable. As for Action Life, it's exact reference is just to a link of a reprint (since it's also on this website with a different title) of an article written by Paul Ranalli, MD.[5][6] The edit you give just adds a "THIS IS A LIE!" in the section header, so I'm not sure what "referencing" you're referring to. Instead, I believe you mean this edit, which is taken from the blog article which contains verifiable, reliable, and credible sources (again with the possible exception of the Heartbeat International training manual reference, which I have yet to find--beyond just its product catalog and in-use evidence on a few other websites--in order to verify). You can't dismiss a part of the "blogging preacher"'s article if that part is objective, verifiable, reliable, and credibly-sourced--which I have shown to you is. Hence, the part should remain in the Wikipedia article. —Eekerz ^(t) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "specifically verified" I hope you mean that you personally checked that the sources back up all the claims that you want add to the article, and that there is no cherry-picking or any other undue treatment of the sources. So you are not at all relying on the referencing done by the minister? Is this the case? For example, which source verifies the highly dubious first sentence in the content you want to add ("Recent studies have confirmed that fetuses feel pain and experience emotional responses at least as early as 14 weeks, when amniocentesis is preformed")? You restored this claim to the lead section, while the body carries widely publicized and reliable studies with completely different results. Ranalli turns out to be an anti-abortion activist who seems to disagree with the scientific consensus, so we have again ran into partisan/fringe sources. Presenting his views as fact won't do and presenting them in any way at all would probably be undue weight. Prolog (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) The following 3 references are used for that statement:

• Gavin A.R., Chae D.H., Mustillo S., and. Kiefe C. I., 2009, Prepregnancy depressive mood and preterm birth in black and white women. Journal of Women’s Health 18 (6). 806-811. Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from academic search complete database.
• Kurjak, A., Carrera, J., McCullough, L., & Chervenak, F. (2007). Scientific and religious controversies about the beginning of human life: the relevance of the ethical concept of the fetus as a patient. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 35(5), 376-383. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from academic search complete database.
• Morgan, M., Goldenberg, R., & Schulkin, J. (2008). Obstetrician-gynecologists' practices regarding preterm birth at the limit of viability. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, 21(2), 115-121. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from academic search complete database.

This reference is also used on viability (fetal) and preterm birth.

So far I cannot find that statement supported in the reference abstracts but, since I don't have access to the full articles, I cannot say for certain if the statement is not supported by the references. I contacted the blog author for the full reference. —Eekerz ^(t) 04:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blog author, Tammie Southerland, replied to my email:

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:58 AM, tammie southerland wrote:

I apologies, The references are not numbered correctly in the article that is in my online blog. As for copies of the Journal articles I retrieved them from the Liberty University data base. Since I am not enrolled in the summer term, therefore I do not have access to that data base at this time. If you will took at the original [she emailed me a PDF of the original research paper she wrote for a Counseling 502 - Human Growth and Development class at Liberty University] the references for that statement are as follows:

Chamberlin, D. (1998). Life before birth. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology and Health 16 (3). Retrieved November 20, 2009 from http://birthpsychology.com/violence/chamberlain1.html,

Kurjak, A., Stanojević, M., Andonotopo, W., Scazzocchio-Duenas, E., Azumendi, G., & Carrera, J. (2005). Fetal Behavior assessed in all three trimesters of normal pregnancy by four-dimensional ultrasonography. Croatian Medical Journal, 46(5), 772-780. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from academic search complete database.

Ranalli P. (2005). A pain too awful to imagine. Action Life Inc Ottawa, Ontario Canada. Retrieved November 20, 2009 from www.actionforlife.org

To which I replied:

OK, well, before your blog article can be used in Wikipedia, its references will need to be fixed to accurately reflect the cited statements. And, again, try to include as specific links as possible and not just the main website. So, for Ranalli, the full URL is http://www.actionlife.org/content/view/251/147/ , Kurjak et al is http://www.cmj.hr/2005/46/5/16158470.htm , and Chamberlin is http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/ (not the one you give, which is "Birth and the Origins of Violence")--and, actually, the exact URL to where the claim is supported is on http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html (but both references support the claim).

I could not find where the claim is supported in the Kurjak et al source (no result for "amn"--short for "amniocentesis" and the only mention of "14", in relation to weeks, is "The incidence of fetal movement patterns in the first trimester of pregnancy between 8-14 weeks of gestation is presented in Figure 6", which does not support your claim). The Ranalli reference does not mention "amniocentesis" but does mention "Pain signals are sent from the receptors back along nerves to the spinal cord and then up to the brain's pain relay station, the thalamus, a connection that is fully wired by 14 weeks", which can support part of your claim.

If you really want your article to be taken seriously you need to make sure the references are correct, specific, and use the same spelling (especially the author) and capitalization.

So, 2 of the 3 references support the claim, but the blog article's references need to be fixed first before it can be considered for use in Wikipedia--and even then I would probably only use the blog article's verified references, and not the blog article itself, given that the blog author does not seem to be careful enough in how she uses references. —Eekerz ^(t) 04:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You now almost agree with me about the blog; I would add something like "will never ever be in any way acceptable as a source." The Chamberlain source is reliable but a) I'm not seeing how it supports the claim, b) it's from 1997 and c) its sources are even older. Ranalli's article, on the other hand, is published by an anti-abortion organization. Having an MD does not of course mean getting one's view documented in Wikipedia, and when writing for a non-medical non-neutral non-RS this is certainly the case. I also don't see how even this source would support the claim you wanted to restore, which you seemed to note in your e-mail. Also, please remove the minister's e-mail, name and e-mail address unless you have the permission to post this personal information. Prolog (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Chamberlain references (the more specific one on Birth Psychology--which is from a 2003 JOPPPAH article, according to the footnote at the bottom of the page) mention "amnioncentesis" and fetal pain at 14 weeks. Ranalli's article is not published by an anti-abortion organization, but is simply reprinted there (and at least 1 other source as I mentioned previously). He is a pro-life MD but I bet there are plenty of pro-choice MDs used as references on Wikipedia so the point is moot. Wikipedia allows viewpoints from both sides of an issue. As for the blog author, her name is available on her blog so I don't see why I can't post it here, but I did remove her email address. —Eekerz ^(t) 11:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Chamberlain sources contain "amniocentesis" and "14 weeks", but no, they do not support what you want to add. Disagree? Help me out by giving the exact quotes that you believe support your addition. The original publisher of Ranalli's article, the National Right to Life Committee, is also an anti-abortion organization. Can you find this piece in any medical source such as a peer-reviewed journal? Also, there's an obvious difference between being anti-abortion and being an anti-abortion activist writing for an anti-abortion organization. As for presenting "both sides of an issue", this sentence from WP:UNDUE hits the nail here: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." I know the blogger's name is right there on the blog, but WP:BLP will give you plenty of reasons not to repeat it here, besides it being unnecessary. Prolog (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eekerz, thanks for your useful comments about the article: Perceptual system. I have changed the wording of this article and removed myself as a source. I took the liberty of also removing the objection about the article's neutrality. I hope the revised article is now okay. Almon.David.Ing (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No prob; thanks for improving it. —Eekerz ^(t) 17:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Black athletes. Since you had some involvement with the Black athletes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mcmatter (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive edits and straightforward good faith in improving Wikipedia. You've done an impressive number (~5833) in a short time (7.5 months). One of the more difficult to grasp and apply Wikipedia guidelines is the appropriate linking guideline. I reverted your edit to Cleft of the Rock Light‎ because it linked common words which do not increase understanding of the subject. It looks like you are on a recent mission to link oil can in multiple articles. Maybe you could review the linking guideline and see if you can gain a feel for which of your recent edits might not be inline with the guideline. Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linking obscure words not normally associated with a subject, such as how an "oil can" relates to a "lighthouse", is justified and helps increase understanding of the subject. Parts of objects are acceptable links too. Linking is subjective. —Eekerz ^(t) 00:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. {{Cite patent}} seems to work fine now I've re-reverted to the previous version. Where has it been screwed up? I'm guessing it's a usage issue rather than a template issue. If you want to join in the discussion for improving the template, go to: Template talk:Citation. GDallimore (Talk) 23:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Stan Lee's Superhumans has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

I see you editing a lot of TV show articles, but I think by now you would realize that you cannot copy text word-for-word from websites like History.com for their shows like you did Stan Lee's Superhumans and Hardcore Pawn. It is a violation of Copyright laws and Wikipedia policies and you could be blocked for it. Cyberia23 (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the copied text is sourced, it's fine. —Eekerz ^(t) 06:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not – besides you've sourced nothing. That would require proper ref tags at the end of every quoted line of text. Cyberia23 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is--read WP:REF; sourcing the entire paragraph/section is fine too. —Eekerz ^(t) 17:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand, citing sources and adding refs aren't the same thing as copying text directly from a website and pasting it here. Unless you're quoting someone then you can copy the text directly and cite the source, but descriptions of things aren't quotes. You're just being lazy and it detracts from the article. Cyberia23 (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure exactly what to do about cats in articles in development. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eekerz. I saw your the "Vigilante films" categiry that you have created. I wanted to get some input on it so I have started a discussion here. Please feel free to add your thoughts there and thanks for your time and input. MarnetteD | Talk 22:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eekerz. I undid your edit to Waterworld because it included wikilinks to articles on plain English words such as "dirt", "raid", "inventor", "solitude", "cigarette", "pistol", "rope". There's no need to link words that an average reader can be expected to understand; doing so just turns the article into a sea of blue and distracts from the truly useful target articles that expand a reader's understanding. It's unlikely someone reading an article on Waterworld would also want to read the article about cigarettes or be helped by it. I'll restore the typos and italics you included in your edit. There's a policy, WP:OVERLINK. Hope this helps. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So unlink those words you think are common enough (but many of the terms are vital to understanding the film). I also fixed capitalization and added italics so watch your reverts next time. —Eekerz ^(t) 21:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Is It Real? has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Wikipedia has a policy called Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which discourages such edits. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. Thank you. Please do not replace the proper {{TVUS}} with {{USA}} in the TV infobox. The template page discourages the use of flags. The exact number of seasons is unconfirmed, since no reliable sources are found. serioushat 09:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see there are editors out there keeping an eye on cannabis-related articles. However, none of the information you recently added to Cannabis Planet is referenced, and the three tables you added are largely incomplete. If you have information about other episodes, or are aware of a source containing this information, it might be worth adding to the article or its talk page. Otherwise, the incomplete and unreferenced information could be removed. Happy editing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you create an article about a documentary film, please do a better job of showing the film's notability. The fact that a documentary is about a notable topic does not necessarily mean that the documentary itself is notable. DS (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of your articles on documentaries are really bad. I'm moving them into your userspace where you can improve them; check with me before moving them back into mainspace. This is me being nice; normally I'd just delete them. DS (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crafting video games, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of American Pickers episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Wobble, Belt, Welton, Pachyderm, Scooter, Soldier boy, Snakeskin and Beer can

Abandonment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Derelict

Dual Survival (2011 season) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to South Pacific

Wrightsville Historic District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Silk mill

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fabric softener (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Softness

Scranton Lace Company (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Valence

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kit (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Keith

List of American Pickers episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gem

Spin kit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ballast

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Thanks for creating the new National Sewing Machine Company article, and for improving Wikipedia's coverage of historical topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please pause adding {{dabprefixes}} to disambiguation pages. Templates are discouraged on dabs per WP:MOSDAB#Images and templates, and this one does not appear to aid navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not aid navigation? It does the same thing for double-/triple-letter dabs as {{Letter disambiguation}} does for single-letter dabs. {{lookfrom}} and {{intitle}} (which also aid navigation) are used extensively on dabs as well. —Eekerz ^(t) 21:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same way that adding a link to every article that starts with A to A doesn't help navigation -- it's clutter that the readers reaching a page are never going to need. We recently got rid of all the navbox version of this, Template:Letter-NumberCombination and Template:LetterCombination. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "clutter"; it's a navigation aid like {{Geographic location}} (used on 10,000+ pages) is for geography. While I agree adding a link to every page that starts with "A" on A is futile, acronyms and initialisms are different because they are made up of few characters which can be easily confused and need differentiation. I don't plan on adding dabprefixes to more than the first 3 levels (x, xx, xxx) of acronym/initialism pages anyway (and it's just 1 line too). And you never replied to why {{letter disambiguation}} is fine but dabprefixes is not? They do the same thing but dabprefixes just goes 2 levels deeper. What's the big deal? —Eekerz ^(t) 21:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're right and it's no big deal, there should be no trouble in verifying consensus with the disambiguation project before adding en masse to hundreds or thousands of pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How? I figured dabprefixes would be fine since {{letter disambiguation}} was already on the single-letter dabs. —Eekerz ^(t) 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: template is not useful and adds unnecessary clutter to dab pages. It has no similarity to {{geographic location}}, which adds links to articles on physically adjacent places to an article about a place, except that they are both templates. I'm not convinced that {{letter disambiguation}} is particularly useful either, and see WP:OCE for its irrelevance to this discussion. PamD 08:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How isn't it useful? It's useful because it acts like a collating sequence (like {{letterdab}}). How does it add "unnecessary clutter" to dab pages? It's one bullet in the "see also" section. Its similarity to {{geographic location}} is that it aids in navigation systems (particularly web navigation) like an index. How is {{letter disambiguation}} not relevant to this discussion? It's been in use since October 30, 2007 and has never been nominated for deletion (in fact, used in support of keeping {{Letter-NumberCombination}}). The problem with all of these Wikipedia essays (which aren't policies, by the way) is they often contradict each other and don't really help solve anything (usually convoluting things). I am just trying to make dab pages easier to navigate and understand their relevance and placement in the broader linguistic scheme. —Eekerz ^(t) 09:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Roundtable (jazz club), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.oldandsold.com/articles06/new-york-city-80.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Roundtable (jazz club) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hghyux (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hghyux (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Eekerz/Roundtable (jazz club), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Roundtable (jazz club). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eekerz/Roundtable (jazz club) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Hghyux (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you create an inappropriate page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hghyux (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, chill! I recreated it in my userspace to work on it. Geez! —Eekerz ^(t) 00:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop doing copyright violations. It's just not allowed. Hghyux (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because it was just created and is still a work-in-progress. Also, each paragraph is attributed so I don't understand why I have to rewrite everything in my own words when it's a waste of time considering attribution is already given. Lastly, the source doesn't provide it's source (just the year) so it is unclear where the information is originally from.

No, it doesn't work that way. Infringing on copyright is not permitted for works in progress.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have 10K edits?!? There is NO excuse for not knowing copyright rules.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated copyright violations despite numerous warnings. Worse, your comments above show that after having the matter explained to you, you actually made completely false statements about how copyright works. No, you cannot add copyrighted material so long as its referenced. No, you cannot add copyrighted material first and then work on it later (and even if you did that offline, approaching an article that way may very well fail the close-paraphrasing rules as well). Copyright is not a small matter--it's not something that is negotiable, or that you just need to get better at. Copyright violations are damaging to the encyclopedia...so damaging that blocking you is necessary. Now, I have made this block indefinite, and in this case I really do mean indefinite, not infinite. You can be unblocked as soon as you can explain clearly why your copyvios are wrong, and what you will change in the future. I'm also inclined to say that you need a mentor who has experience in copyright issues.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eekerz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How did I "repeatedly" violate copyrights? And what "numerous" warnings? The article was a work-in-progress that I accidentally created in main space when I meant to put it in my userspace as a very rough draft. Within 3 minutes the article was flagged for speedy deletion and, when I created the userspace page, that was also flagged for speedy deletion within several minutes. I tried to add a {{newpage}} tag on it but the page was deleted before I finished. I even added a blockquote for the referenced text to try and give some time before I could work on the article more later. It all happened so fast (and never before to me) that I didn't have time to edit the article (and I had to go away for a while). Considering the short time and it was just one article, I hardly feel that is bounds for a block based on "numerous" (2 within a few minutes for the same article in 2 different places) copyright violations (which weren't violationS but just one violation I was in the process of rewriting). I will of course reword and incorporate more references (have 2 so far). I was hasty in posting the article but, again, I meant to post it to my userspace to work on it later since I had to go.

Decline reason:

I need only go back to a discussion in Sept 2010 where you argued that you could create articles that way, but were told distinctly "NO, YOU CANNOT". You can never copy/paste copyright text, even if ref'd, block quoted, and put on a page that says "userspace draft". You have known this for at least 1-1/2 years, yet you have continued to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The article Virtual Girl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Only review appears to be from filmcritic.com. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. czar · · 00:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Prometheus Entertainment, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. – Recollected • 00:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Prometheus Entertainment has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable, no secondary references establishing its notability.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Prometheus Entertainment 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/Prometheus Entertainment 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. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 02:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Powder shading has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

two relevant incoming links replaced, hopeless stub

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. JFTR, because you contributed to this article years ago. Be..anyone (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bibliophobia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable phobia. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the refs meet WP:MEDRS.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Main meal. Since you had some involvement with the Main meal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JZCL 18:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Longest. Since you had some involvement with the Longest redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Background image requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Variation 25.2 (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Andy Whitfield". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 September 2015.

The request for formal mediation concerning Andy Whitfield, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Burger bun. Since you had some involvement with the Burger bun redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chrissy (6teen). Since you had some involvement with the Chrissy (6teen) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Looking (disambiguation).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This has been tagged for one issue.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 12/31/2007. Since you had some involvement with the 12/31/2007 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. B dash (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:More specific links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MB 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Woodcutting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Woodcutting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Customer (Dis)Service 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/Customer (Dis)Service until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BOVINEBOY2008 20:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trash Inc: The Secret Life of Garbage 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/Trash Inc: The Secret Life of Garbage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BOVINEBOY2008 01:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dabprefixesnum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Water transport in fiction has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Fairchild Channel F games indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 19 § X in fiction IV on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dabprefixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Pet toy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 20 § Pet toy until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]