User talk:JEN9841

Welcome!

Hello, JEN9841, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Ohio. 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
• How to write a great article
• 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! Macduffman (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i work on a navbox for ways of obtaining science in two related field, scientific method from philosophy of science and dikw pyramid from information science. i need help of some people like you to finsh this,

you can see a prototype of navbox in my sand box: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KPU0/sandbox Plutonium 14:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KPU0 (talk • contribs)

	The Parsec Award for Speedy Kessle Runs
	There were no pictures of parsecs, so I made an award with some parsley. Namaste. Long live the Rebel Alliance. Theduinoelegy (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to pop this award back down the bottom of the page. Just wanted it visible in the initial instance because, you know, parsley.

Thank you for cleaning up the URLs in the references section of the page. Please note however, had I realized they were not third-party sources I would've added the new banner to the article the same time I added the Linkrot banner. Nevertheless, the article does not currently meet the guidelines set forth in WP:N, WP:V, or WP:ORG. Simply put, sources must be found that are independent of the article's content, thus information posted from the University itself is not within the guidelines. Thank you. CaptainMorgan (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many other pages, such as the one for the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Business Administration cite sources from internal websites. In fact, on this page, there are 6 citations from the school website, with only two from external sites. I will be adding more, later, but I currently have 3 external references for the University of Akron College of Business Administration page. I think as long as the U of Illinois-Chicago page does not have the notability banner, the Akron one should not have it either. JEN9841 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)"
  • The logic used here is not sufficient for the removal of the correct banner - the very purpose the banner was created for, and the reason why we adhere to the notability guideline. Please keep in mind what was good for one page is not always good for another, even if the content is similar - in that case it's more likely the issue of someone not seeing it to make people aware. If you are aware of it, by all means, add the proper banners so either you can come back to it later, or so that someone else can fix the issue entirely... Please tell me you've reviewed the WP pages I linked to - if you did, you would see that the argument you just made is not within the guidelines set forth. As you are probably aware, whether I or you like it or not, they're there for a reason, and the reasons are fully explained. The articles you created did not adhere, simply put; had I seen the other article you mentioned I would've done the same... it's pure Wikipedia policy. However, unless I see other pages which require the banner, this issue can rest because I see that you've since added secondary and/or third-party sources to both articles, thereby adhering to the Notability guidelines, thank you. CaptainMorgan (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Craig Zobel, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

This is insanity. Thanks for your efforts in improving this piece. I have edited Irish articles on rebellion pitting Protestants and Catholics, and I have still never run into a situation of determined ideologues like these human rights articles. Keep up the good work, and let's try to reach some level of neutrality.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of films in the public domain, 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/List of films in the public domain. 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. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for creating the above article. Though it would help people iff you did not add brackets [ ] around your references. This is because the whole reference turns out looking like a link. So when doing your reference it is advisable that you write it like this:

<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/prima-facie ''Answers.com'' Retrieved 25 May 2009</ref>.

Thanks. For any other queries look at the wikipedia page. NPervez (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Electoral reform in New Jersey 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, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, 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 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. shirulashem (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Jerry Warren, 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/Jerry Warren. 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jen: I edited this article to get rid of the "suggested influence" section tying the Bush admin. to the Nazis. An aburd piece, though you should know as you are also working on this article. [2]Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, please do! The article needs many pictures. If you haven't set up an account at Wikimedia Commons, please do. That will make it even easier for your pictures to be used not only in the University of Akron article, but in other articles as well. Further, any pictures you take that may not be used in the article can be categorized and then a link can be placed in the Wikipedia article to that gallery (since galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia). Good luck with the pictures! Let me know if I can be of any assistance! --JonRidinger (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. The title is totally off, and the reason I made my statement was for the same reason you did. I agree that it should be renamed, but I do not know the mechanism for doing it to a wider audience. Any suggestions? Thanks again.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was certainly bold, but they moved it back. I would suggest this be placed on the NPOV notice board. The title reflects a slanted point of view, not supported by the sources.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ironclad (film), 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/Ironclad (film). 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request the article has been userfied at User:JEN9841/Ironclad (film). Shereth 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JEN9841, I'm referring to the above tag which you added to The Case of the Gilded Fly.

I rated the article "Start" class myself despite its length because secondary material on the novel has not been cosulted. The majority of the text is a plot summary and literary allusions in the novel, but there is no point whatsoever in giving page references becuase (a) the novel as such is the source and (b) I have been working from a random paperback edition—the only one I could get hold of. As far as I'm concerned, the only inline citation I could add is a reference to the novel's U.S. title at the end of the introductory paragraph.

What else / What exactly should be added?

Best wishes, <KF> 14:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain your reasoning in editing the first line of the Columbus page concerning clean and ultra-modern? Columbus was ranked in the top 5 for cleanest cities in the country this century, and the definition of ultramodern is extremely modern in ideas or style. Columbus is extremely modern in style and ideas, concerning what the city has and is producing, and the architecture of the city. Behal Sampson Dietz, MSI, Browne Group, Design Group and an endless list of ultramodern architects and architecture are located in the city. If you like internet service and instant messaging, thank Columbus. If you like modern medical research, thank Columbus. If you like certain Academy Award winning movies, thank Columbus. If you like water treatment plants, thank Columbus. If you like female pilots, thank Columbus. If you like cruise-control, thank Columbus. If you like nuclear energy, Columbus had a role. The list is endless that qualifies Columbus for the labeling. All of the major towers Downtown have been built within the last couple decades or so, or at least in modern era, excluding the historic LeVeque Tower. Columbus is ranked as the #1 most up and coming technological city in the country. Is there a Wiki standard I am missing? All of this information is sourced and cited.

Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding all those citations. When you are finished with the sections you are working on I suppose I'll see about finally reformatting the information into wikitables (as I've been meaning to get to that since the AfD). --Tothwolf (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JEN9841: I appreciate your praising my additions, and I thank you for your advice. I’m sure you noticed the apprehensive comment that was previously on my user page, but your page provides a general design for a user page, so I recently added a few basic and non-controversial things to mine. I’ve also written some suggestions, based on my brief experience, about improvement of Wikipedia security. Inasmuch as you have a lot more experience than me, possibly you’ll express your view as to why Wikipedia permits certain things, such as users being able to alter other users’ pages. Doing that is unethical, we both agree, but how can Wikipedia justify allowing it at all? Is there a way someone can protect their user page?

Your list of pages created shows you have done a lot of work on a broad range of subjects. My main reservation about putting such a list on my own page is the possibility of targeted vandalism.

The userboxes on your page imply that your politics are generally liberal, which is okay with me. I don’t mind discussing politics with people who are liberal or conservative, provided they have wisdom to share and act as though they’re willing to learn. But I’m sure you’re aware of people who are extremely intolerant of folks with different politics, and some of them regard it their patriotic duty to take revenge by means such as vandalizing the pages of people with “wrong-headed” ideas.

If you feel comfortable posting your list of pages and views on specific political issues on your user page, then you’re braver than I am.

Among other things, I assist filmmakers by researching the copyright status of films so they can be certain they’re not running afoul of anyone else’s intellectual property right. I have several books on copyright and public domain law, as well as all of the cumulative catalogs of film copyright registrations and renewals. As I add the years, studios and nationalities to titles on your page, occasionally I come across films whose copyrights have been renewed, so I have added the facts about those renewals to the pages for those titles. Improper renewal invalidates U.S. copyright protection, but potential users ought to be alerted that further research is needed in those cases.

Your list of public domain films includes a few titles I was previously unaware of, such as FRESH HARE (1943), which doesn’t appear in the 1940s Copyright Catalog. On the page for FRESH HARE, I didn’t find a link back to your List of Public Domain Films. Several of the Warner Bros. cartoons of the late 30s and early 40s weren’t registered for copyright. Aardvarkzz (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 September 2009, Bensin reformatted titles beginning with A and B in List of films in the public domain in the United States as a table. Based on your remarks of 5 September 2009, I infer you did not consent to this change. With your permission, I will add the following to the discussion page (or I can add it to Bensin’s user talk page) --

The 5 September 2009 remarks by JEN9841, this page’s creator, ought to be respected. There is no harm in creating, on a separate page, a table of public domain films, but by reformatting the existing page into a table (already done for titles beginning with A and B), Bensin is disrupting and cluttering the page. None of these changes indicate that Bensin has any special knowledge or wisdom to offer in the field of public domain film.

Bensin has complicated things by adding new categories of information in three columns, two of which still are completely empty. Does Bensin intend to supply the information for the empty columns? Even when information is added to those columns, the table won’t assist anyone in learning about public domain films.

The year a film entered the public domain is irrelevant unless an issue of litigation is whether a defendant using a public domain film committed an alleged infringement sooner than the film entered the public domain, and that’s very rarely (if ever) an issue in copyright litigation.

How a film got into the public domain is a complex matter on which experts sometimes disagree. If Bensin were an authority on that subject, he (I’m presuming male gender) would be aware that reason(s) for a film being in the public domain often cannot be summarized in the brief space of a table column. If Bensin has information to offer on a film’s copyright status, the best place to add it is on that film’s page in proximity to its link to List of films in the public domain in the United States, as I have done in supplying copyright registration and renewal information for certain films.

Bensin has also added a column with the film’s director, which is of little or no relevance to the film’s public domain status, and is an unnecessary duplication of credits found on each film’s main page.

[End of proposed discussion.]

Further to JEN9841 -- I presume you will broach this matter with Bensin. Inasmuch as you are a more experienced Wikipedian than myself, maybe you know (and I can learn from you) the customary way to politely inform busybodies such as Bensin that there are more productive ways to spend their time than reformatting pages on subjects in which their knowledge and expertise is decidedly limited.

Possibly Bensin will respect your request, and the above discussion will be unnecessary.

You may, if you wish, include my comments and proposed discussion in your communication with Bensin. Aardvarkzz (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By this edit you said you were fixing comma errors. I've reverted the edit because they weren't errors. Wikipedia uses the "logical" style for placement of quotation marks. See WP:LQ, which states:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not. This practice is referred to as logical quotation. It is used by Wikipedia both because of the principle of minimal change, and also because the method is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing.

Although this isn't the most common style, it's the one that should be used here. JamesMLane t c 01:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more information and citations to balance the POV. Can you find the Washington Times review? Bearian (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you want to add this content, as do about a hundred other people. However, your source does not say that it was Wilson, or that he said "you lie". I'm sure articles will come out tomorrow that report on this, so please revert and wait until you can add it properly. Thanks — Mike :  tlk  01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's appropriate now with the AP article. Thanks for properly citing it — Mike :  tlk  01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please stop creating a controversy section on the Joe Wilson article. You are approaching the Three Revert Rule. Please see the talk page. Thanks! Reliefappearance (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your great work on wikipedia. That is all. (This isn't in response to any thing in particular, but just to your general awesome work.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjwerner (talk • contribs) 05:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Summa Field at InfoCision Stadium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review articles in my edits for anything you care to add. Thanks, MBHiii (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JEN- Thanks for your comments on my talk page a few days ago. I'm happy to help where I can. I did want to say thanks for adding your pictures from the new stadium. I REALLY loved the shot you got with the flag. Very cool! If you're ever able to add some pictures of the other side of the stadium, I think that would be beneficial as well. I did want to mention something about the article grade for University of Akron. I posted a little on the talk page about it. Basically, I think the best way for someone like you had had made extensive edits to a page is to request an evaluation by posting on the talk pages for the various wikiprojects the article is part of. That way you can be sure the evaluation is free from any bias or any claims of bias. The article is definitely not Start class anymore, but in reading the classifications, it seemed to fit more "C" class than "B", though I hardly consider myself completely neutral in the article since I have made my share of edits (though nothing close to the amount of great work you have put in). I have found in articles I have edited extensively, the best avenue is to move it up to the next higher class when it's at stub or start (with an explanation) and then request an evaluation from someone else who isn't really connected with the subject. Good luck and thanks again for all your efforts and contributions. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this sort of thing across what seems to be hundreds of articles is indiscriminate and a misuse of see also sections, which are for articles of crucial relevance to the topic at hand that for whatever reason have not been linked to in the body of the article. There are hundreds of pages as relevant as American philosophy that could be added to these articles, and none of them would be appropriate.  Skomorokh, barbarian  00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Ayn Rand was an important philosopher of the 20th century in the United States. The best line of argument I think you would have is that she is not "American enough", which I am not sure would stand up. Her relevance and influence in American philosophy, and the amount of time she spent in the United States I think safely lands her in this category. Ayn Rand is on the list of American philosophers and there is also a paragraph devoted to her and Objectivist philosophy in the article American philosophy. I have also posted a similar post on the talk page to see what others think. JEN9841 (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, in response to your claim that my edits adding American philosophy and List of American philosophers (and creating See also sections where they are lacking) are indiscriminate, I also am unable to see how this is the case. All of the pages that I am adding that to are philosophers who are on the page List of American philosophers. I fail to see how linking the entry of an American philosopher to an entry that provides a list of other American philosophers is thoughtless or careless. I request further clarification with regards to this allegation on your part. JEN9841 (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know why you shouldn't post that at the bottom of the page. Did you ever get a satisfactory response? Jabberwockgee (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Alasdair MacIntyre was British, heavily influenced by McCabe and others. --Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was born, raised, and educated in the United Kingdom, but I have been including people such as MacIntyre because he has been living and working in American for about forty years. Many philosophers were born in and/or spent much time in other countries (Santayana), or continually traveled to other countries (David Lewis), but I believe they can still be considered, at least in some sense, "American" philosophers. What do you think? JEN9841 (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his original work was (I think) done in the UK and looking at his page we need to get some dates right. Marxism and Christianity came out in the 70s for example. Thinking about it given the time in the US I think its OK but he is very much within a European socialist tradition which makes him a bit of an anomaly. --Snowded ^TALK 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make any corrections you deem appropriate. JEN9841 (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love American philosophy for the pragmatists and work in the development of abductive research techniques with due homage to Pierce. However overall its not an area in which I am an expert. I do need to tidy up Alasdair's page. The Blackfriars connection was critical and its not there.--Snowded ^TALK 19:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, David F. Haight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David F. Haight. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The film premiered is set for the 23. July 2010 as part of the 2010 Comic Con International. The official theatrical release is however on 21 July 2011. But it run prior on several film festivals. (Zombie433 talk) 07:07,22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi JEN9841! Wow. That. Is. Just. Insane! Well done, great find. (And this is from someobody who is uncomfortable being in the same house as a bottle of Tabasco sauce, let alone the same room.) - regards, --Shirt58 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JEN9841 - List of songs considered the best - mighty, mighty work! Just reading it explains so much! --Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the removal, I was planning on asking you to re-evaluate it soon anyways. You can take some of the credit for the article though, your tag gave me that extra kick in my step to get some real work done on it!  :) JEN9841 (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of books about philosophy , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anthrophilos (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Anthrophilos (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of strongmen 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/List of strongmen 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. B (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all active Philosophy of Science Task Force members. Your input is wanted at the Philosophy of science Talk page. -Hugetim ^(talk) 14:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hello. I saw your great contribution in philosophic pages. at the same time I read your activity in Passive intellect page. lately I try to create a page which is concerned with passive intellect by the name of [[3]]. but some editors criticized me for non comprehensibility. I need to some one else who can help me in explaining the page more.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you were interested by this article. I have an issue with Green_Cardamom here about references. What do you think? Please ping me if you answer here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of songs considered the best 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/List of songs considered the best 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. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)

Your nice edits at Laws Empire seems to indicate that you might have read the book. Possibly you could add some comments on the closing two chapters if its of interest. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JEN9841,

I'm Kevin, one of the founding members of the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Created in July 2016, we're working to be a central group of Ohio Wikimedians who organize and support offline events, promote the Wikimedia movement in Ohio, build connections throughout our state, and above all, support each other. We already have a handful of members and have worked to support multiple events, including Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States and several Art+Feminism edit-a-thons at universities throughout Ohio.

I wanted to reach out to you and invite you to join the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Being a part of the user group will allow easy communication between active Ohio editors, notifications of upcoming events in the Ohio area, and, if you're interested, the opportunity to help organize events such as edit-a-thons or workshops. Some notes:

• All members receive a monthly newsletter with recent happenings, upcoming events, and more. Check out our April newsletter here.
• This Thursday at 8:30 EST, we're having our first online meeting. Check out our meeting page here for more details, an agenda, and a section to sign up if you'd like to join us. Topics will include introductions and brainstorming for future projects.

Right now we have a Wikipedia Takes Columbus photo event going on, a Wiknic coming up this summer, and opportunities to attend the upcoming Ohio Private Academic Libraries Conference. If you're interested in joining us, feel free to add your name here - and feel free to reach out to me (or post on the user group's talk page) with questions or discussions. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User: JEN9841,

I see you are a member of the Wikipedia Social and Political Philosophy task force. I wonder if you might be willing to help me with a review of a substantial redraft of the article I have proposed for How (philosophy) at at: Talk:How_(book)#Request_for_review_of_Redraft . In addition to the personal and political space, it also is about organizational philosophy. While I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and have written about two dozen articles,I have a COI as a paid consultant to the author of the primary book on the subject.

If you're able to give the time for an independent review, I'd be appreciative.

Many thanks,

Ed BC1278 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philosophy of color 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/Philosophy of color 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. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating 2018 in philosophy. I saw a red link for John Heil and created a stub. Feel free to expand it if you want.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JEN9841,

Thanks for creating 2019 in art! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you have added films to some number pages. If these are to be listed then they might be better at the disambiguation pages such as 1 (disambiguation) rather than in what are supposed to be mathematical articles about the number. However, we usually leave partial title matches out completely, per MOS:DAB. If they are to go in then we would probably want a separate "list of numbered films" or similar, along the lines of the List of retired numbers which has content that we removed from the number pages a few years ago. Certes (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even considered disambiguation pages, but I was going to comment on the "partial title matches". Consider, for example that 7 (disambiguation) does not include Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, having taken a look at some of the other film pages, that I thought it was appropriate to include films (and even other things, like literature, philosophy, and sports) on these kinds of pages. If you take, for example, the page for the number 7, it has included sections on film and literature containing the number 7 for several years now. I would have thought that this was decent evidence that, impliedly at least, the community approves of the inclusion of such material in pages of this kind. It appears, though, that a few people feel strongly it should not be included, as my changes have been reverted. Perhaps we should begin removing the content from the other pages (like 7). On the other hand, I think it would be unfortunate to remove this material. As it stands, the page for number 7, for example, I think is special and part of what makes Wikipedia unique. It is interesting to see the many different domains in which a single number appears -- but perhaps that is just me. I do not see very strong reason to restrict the coverage of these topics to strictly "mathematical" subjects, as this does not even appear to be what they are now. For example, the article for 3 has included a section on religion for a number of years. If this is the standard, then it seems a lot and perhaps even most of the existing material on number pages should be removed. I am new to editing the number pages though so perhaps I am missing something. JEN9841 (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-active WikiProject Numbers has hosted several discussions on what number pages should include (examples) but there's no firm agreement. Frankly the pages are so attractive to good-faith but unhelpful fly-by IP editors adding trivia such as the number of tracks on their favourite album that it is a challenge to keep them tidy. Certes (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of Donald Trump, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2021 in science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTALBALL it won’t be controversial to propose this article for deletion. Wikipedia should not be the place to predict future events.

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. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 in science 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/2021 in science 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. JaneciaTaylor (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PNC Center (Akron) 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/PNC Center (Akron) 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.   // Timothy :: talk  04:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bulger Hall 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/Bulger Hall 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.   // Timothy :: talk  04:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Goodyear Polymer Center, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodyear Polymer Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of tallest buildings in Akron, Ohio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"Tallest buildings" in a minor Midwestern city/town with an absolute smorgasbord of cleanup tags. No suggestion this is a valuable list, far too niche for LISTPURP, particularly considering most of the buildings themselves aren't notable.

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. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTDICT:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - This is just a definition page for what appears to be a discredited interpretation of Hegel.

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. - car chasm (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Panlogism has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]