User talk:Fredsmith2

This is Fredsmith2's talk page. Be nice to Fred, please.

Hello, Fredsmith2, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spartaz (talk • contribs).

I have merged the content you added into the article Cluttering as I believed that the imformation was more useful there. The article has been redirected to there. Hope this is OK, but merging and redirects are a useful way to allow people to search the site and find connected information all in one place. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions (just click on humbug and edit my talk page to leave a message). Cheers --Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to the article Lifespring. However, if you cannot cite a more reliable source that the Web site "Awareness page", unfortunately the material you inserted into the article will have to be removed. Smee 06:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• I responded to your comment in the article talk page. I agree with your position here, however, please, next time use more polite language on the talk page. Smee 06:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • But if you do know of any other sources for these "Spinoff" groups, it would be greatly appreciated. Smee 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You may wish to create a User Page. You can just click on the red "user page" tab uptop, or invariably also User:Fredsmith2. There is some interesting information on User Pages at Wikipedia:User page. Here is the list of Userboxes, and this is some Wikipedia information about Userboxes. Yours, Smee 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Naylor group. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/NaylorGroup.htm in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Naylor group with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Naylor group with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Naylor group saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. SESmith 02:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember the following guideline: Wikipedia:Not a real encyclopedia Fredsmith2 21:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the edit summary: http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/ Tom 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. You're right. I shouldn't have marked that as minor (nor the one before it come to that. I'll try and be a little more conscious of when I'm checking that box in the future. -- SiobhanHansa 00:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. I'm curious why you added "a private foundation" to the Omaha Children's Museum article. Do you have insider knowledge, or is there a citation that supports this assertion? I cannot find anything online, including the official IRS database, that indicates their nonprofit status. The only wording on their website is ambiguous. Thoughts? – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see you share my interest in helping the nonprofit articles! Let me know if I can assist in any way... – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred: Please excuse me--as I am a TOTAL Wiki newbie. Yes, I have read everything that my poor brain can hold, and realized very quickly that there is WAY more that I still need to learn. If this is NOT the place that I am talk to you about the review that you just did on the bio that I am working on for Joseph J. Dewey, then I would like to be told where, when and how I maintain a dialogue with you as I sincerely would like to get it right. By the way, I appreciate your edits, and was a bit surprised because I was uploading an image and when I returned to the page, I was advised that edits had been done while I was doing edit!? No problem as I REALLY appreciate you taking the time to give me your input and feedback. I have not yet set up a user's page, and I guess this is as good a reason to as anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithgiant (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred...I just read what you responded with me...and now I better understand..and even accept why it is that you made the changes to Dewey's (grin) name. And you are correct, this who Wiki thing is VERY foreign (new) to me, and need ALL the help I can get.

I also understand about Wiki's definition of fact being something that is published by a known, or respected third party publication.

The problem that I have is that little or nothing is known about this person--in fact he is about as obscure as anyone can get, yet he has one of the most fascinating life story that I have come across.

So, does this mean that just because someone doesn't have something published about them in some third party publication, that they are not deserving (more towards being encyclopedic material) of a bio here at Wiki?

Also, what makes me also wonder (towards being confused) about it all--is that from what I have been able to discover, is that the information that was there had been there for maybe 4-5 years--and both of these postings were nothing more than a bunch of misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and ALL the links were bad, etc., etc., and yet no one says anything until it gets corrected--and I get mentored--tagged, flagged, etc., indicating that it is I that is not complying with established policies?

I know there's a fine line in some of this, and again, I wonder (towards being interested in understanding) how it is that I can avoid problems; i.e., coming to understand the criteria better or more clearly--but towards lessons as YOU have given me; i.e., using the moniker Dewey versus Joseph (I just chose this as this is/was his given name--and is a more formal version than what he is referred to by his friends, family and students). And, in a minute I am going to go back and re-insert your suggestions.

AND, I have (mentally) come up with some other words and phrases that I think will help tone it down--or tend to objectify some of these statements.

Understand that I want to comply, and I have been working hard on trying to come up with a different construct--or scheme to tell this man's story--as the unique aspect of this person is the FACT that his life ARE his teachings--and his teachings ARE his life--meaning, when his story is told, you can't help but also talk, tell and speak of what might be termed as spiritual principles.

I think this person's story is important enough that I may even use this as an exercise to create a biographical book outline.

Also, I will not be offended, etc., if everything gets deleted, as I plan to use all this to create a similar presentation for his website and several other places.

Again, I appreciate your input, and hope that you will again, take the time to audit me as I continue to work on this project.

Regards,

Smithgiant 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apprecicate your input and I have been in contact with the author and am chasing down a TV interview, a newspaper article, and "church records" that I can use as "secondary" or "third party" sources. And, I am continuing to look elsewhere as well.

Regards,

Smithgiant 04:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be editing tendentiously. Please don't removing COI tags without cleaning up the articles. That's disruptive. I've opened a discussion at WP:ANI to get input from uninvolved parties. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result of me replacing three COI tags with what I thought were more appropriate tags, was this guy reported me, and implied I was disrespectful to him. My opinion still is that the COI tags have to go because they violate wikipedia's COI guidelines. Fredsmith2 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, see a new thread I started over at WT:COIN about there being too many tagged articles. EdJohnston 03:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fredsmith2, I was just checking my watchlist and saw work you are doing on Roller Derby related articles. I haven't had much time for adding content lately, and was pleased to see your work. Just thought I drop a note and introduce myself. Most of my interactions with other wikipedians have been defined by negativity, and attempts to establish intellectual superiority, so I wanted to go out of my way to add something affirmative when I saw the chance.~~ Michael J Swassing 15:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice comment, and thanks for your contributions! Fredsmith2 00:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Category:Women's Flat Track Derby Association teams for renaming. I suggested that an administrator replace "teams" with "members", which is not only more accurate, but should have greater longevity than "leagues", which would be the most precise option today. The nomination is here, and I believe you can lodge an objection or other feedback there if you like. —mjb 03:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good proposal. Keep up the good work. Fredsmith2 00:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you closely related to the Frederick W. Smith? - Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fredsmith2, I have concerns that you are attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. I've started a discussion based on my concerns. You are welcome to comment there. I am hopeful that we can clarify any misunderstandings. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a safety warning, if anyone asks you for personal information on Wikipedia, you are not required to give it. I refused to answer this question, and you should probably refuse to answer similar questions like this, too, if you're pried for personal information on here. Let's keep Wikipedia a safe place, everybody. Fredsmith2 00:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up, in case you have any reason to comment on a recent Request for Arbitration involving the administrators Durova and Jehochman Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Durova_and_Jehochman. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Casey Ryder deletion during creation and editing this is the entry from the deletion log:

18:24, 19 October 2007 Merope (Talk | contribs) deleted "Casey ryder" ‎ (content was: '{{Infobox Album | Name = Here | Type = cd| Artist = Casey Ryder| Cover = | ...' (and the only contributor was 'Vic dood'))

my post on User talk:Merope Casey Ryder Why did you delete the new article I was working on as I was editing it, within seconds of it being created? would it not be more courteous and civil to discuss it first, and at least view the finished product before doing this?

Vic dood 18:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So far no response.

I was in the process of creating this page, and in the middle of an edit to to it. I went to save the revised info and the page had disappeared. Within seconds of creating and in the middle of editing it Merope deleted it with no comment or discussion or guidance or anything. what is going here at wikipedia?

Just totally discouraged and fed up. Vic dood 20:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vic_dood"

Vic dood 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain. One of my first articles I created got deleted, that I was in the middle of working on, too, but at least the wikipedian that did it to me was nice, and merged the content into another page.

Here's a trick you can use, if you're just creating a page. You can make most of it with comments and stuff on the discussion page. You can create a discussion page for a page without having to create the page itself. Here's an example: Talk:Casey_Rider. People will be less likely to delete it. Or, you can create a page that's part of your username. I made an example here: User:Vic_dood/Casey_Rider_Sandbox.

Something you should do is Assume Good Faith, on the part of the person who deleted your article. Who knows, maybe they're a newbie, too. Fredsmith2 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it was this person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Merope A rouge admin. there was no good fiath, just abuse of power. but I dont care I am deleting my ID and packing my suitcase and leaving this dysfunctional madhouse. Vic dood 00:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go, but thanks for quoting Charlton Heston before you did. Fredsmith2 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soylent green is wikipedia admins! well thanks for the support, but I am just an observer now. check this guy out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Realkyhick

All he does is go around deleting, and being abusive. I guess this is what wikipedia wants?. Vic dood 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this article interesting. It may have already been deleted from wikipedia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/10/11/dlwiki11.xml

Tireless volunteer effort has turned Wikipedia into the world's most popular information source. But increasingly acrimonious arguments about what it should include threaten to split the online encyclopedia in two. Ian Douglas reports

There's a war going on behind the pages of Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia written and edited by its readers

Submission of new articles is slowing to a trickle where in previous years it was flood, and the discussion pages are increasingly filled with arguments and cryptic references to policy documents. The rise of the deletionists is threatening the hitherto peaceful growth of the world's most popular information source.

Even though anyone can edit all but the most controversial pages, the English-language Wikipedia is governed by a group of a little over 1,000 administrators drawn from the ranks of enthusiastic editors. Only they have the power to finally delete an article or bring it back from the dead.

More from the LA Times article

"Delete with fire," recommended another user. "If anyone but King James had started this arty it would have been cast into the memory hole within an hour. Doubt this? Then test it by starting an article on a local restaurant you like and see how long it remains alive."

(I did test this by posting a three-sentence entry about a quirky pet store in my hometown. It was deleted after 27 hours -- not instantaneously, as in Wales' case, but still pretty quickly.)

His intentions assailed, Wales deigned to enter the Mzoli's fray, accusing his detractors of "shockingly bad faith behavior," and suggesting that some of them should "excuse themselves from the project and find a new hobby.""

Jimbo Wales is a hypocrite then Because he has nothing about this issue since.

Vic dood 23:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Edinburgh Masker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Masker. Thank you. UtherSRG (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to this article. I just wanted to comment that an edit summary that says "helped the newbie clean this up" could be construed as being patronizing, especially since there is more than one editor who has done work on this article. Again thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the newbie who requested help on the article, and I didn't want to name usernames. Fredsmith2 (talk) 04:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that now EdJohnson & BlueAzure are skipping boards Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/64.30.201.109 in regards to the articles you have been helping with.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that now BlueAzure has skipped another board and has put another Adf tag on the Mimi Fuenzalida article you helped edit on.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fredsmith2, i just wanted to say thank you and goodbye. You have been very sweet and helpful in trying to assist me with WP. BlueAzure has taken any desire and fun out of wanting to help the process. It's not worth it to me to keep going, but I wanted to encourage you to stay because you are one of the good guys.HollywoodFan1 (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about BlueAzure, but I do know from your perspective you were bitten, and discouraged from being bold with your editing. There really ought to be somewhere that people like you can report their grievances like this, and where established users get chided if they bite newbies. I don't think it exists now, but I'll keep looking for it. Fredsmith2 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Envy (pornstar), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Envy (pornstar) and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example 3, unless "Inner-Core" is some kind of special term, which it isn't explained in the body of the text, and if it were, would be considered the addition of jargon, it should be spelled, "Inner core." Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

When you've finished, consider posting your evaluation on the Rudget RfA. ^Avruchtalk 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I omitted a semicolon. It should read: Example 3, unless "Inner-Core" is some kind of special term, which it isn't explained in the body of the text, and if it were, would be considered the addition of jargon; it should be spelled, "Inner core." Fredsmith2 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Care to take another look? ^Avruchtalk 01:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your postings seem very close to a personal attack. Please either say something constructive or back off. It's grammatically correct. It wouldn't be worthy of inclusion on an article page, because it's stylistically awkward, but it's valid for a talk page. Fredsmith2 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I disagree. I merely pointed out that your comment had grammar issues even though grammar was itself the subject of the comment. I'm not a usage expert, perhaps you are. If you say it is stylistically awkward rather than poor grammar, then I guess I will take your word on it. But you catch my point, I think. Even grammar mavens make grammar errors, and as such it is a poor reason to oppose. (Your oppose is still listed by the way, though you say its 'closed.'). ^Avruchtalk 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do I close the oppose? Fredsmith2 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You strike it out and indent it like so:

1. Oppose

^Avruchtalk 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fredsmith2, my sincere thanks for your participation in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 17:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Fred Smith (football), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Fred Smith (football), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Smith (football) and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fredsmith2,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! PamD (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fredsmith2! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 314 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Stephen Cooper (trainer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Stephen Cooper (trainer)‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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.

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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fredsmith2. 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)[reply]

Hello, Fredsmith2. 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)[reply]

Category:Supply chain management terms, which you created, has been nominated for possible merging. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fredsmith2. 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)[reply]

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

The article lacks specifics and reads like an advertisement. Article has not been revised in 16 years. Recommend for deletion

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Delayed auditory feedback has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

redundant content fork, information in treatment for stuttering

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. 2601:1C2:1900:1CC0:3093:6E41:61ED:5822 (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the PROD. Explained in my edit summary. Commander Keane (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Delayed auditory feedback 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/Delayed auditory feedback 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 until the discussion has finished.

Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]