User talk:Pmcalduff

Welcome!

Hello, Pmcalduff, 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
• 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!

Hi, you are cordially invited to join the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels". We make no length distinction so all narrative prose fiction is of interest. This includes Novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories. Articles about the works themselves and the forms and genres.

As you have shown an interest in Orson Scott Card we thought you might like to take an interest in this well established WikiProject.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have been adding the following to many science fiction magazine articles:

==See also== * [[Science fiction magazine]] * [[Fantasy fiction magazine]] * [[Horror fiction magazine]] * [[Online magazine]] * [[Magazine]] 

Please read WP:ALSO for why these additions are inappropriate. 'See also' entries are to be used very selectively, for internal links that are related to the article in question but are not present in the article. [[Science fiction magazine]] is typically present in the lead sentence of these articles, and does not need to be repeated. [[Online magazine]] will also be present in the lead if appropriate; otherwise it doesn't belong. If a particular sf magazine also prints fantasy or horror, those too will be in the lead, otherwise they don't belong. And finally [[Magazine]] is a common English word, and does not need to be in a 'See also'. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added See alos to most of the science fiction magazines because about 95% of them did NOT have a link to Science fiction magazine present in the lead sentence of the articles or anywhere else for that matter. And there should be. Articles don’t exist in a vacuum. However, I’m sorry if I added it to a few articles where it was already present.

In most cases I think adding internal links to Fantasy fiction magazine and Horror fiction magazine were appropriate since most Science fiction magazines also publish Fantasy fiction and Horror fiction.

However you are absolutely right that there is no need for a link to Magazine and and that Online magazine should only be used where appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcalduff (talk • contribs)

If the lead sentence of a science fiction magazine article is lacking a link to science fiction magazine, then you should add it to the lead sentence, so that readers know what kind of magazine this is (unless it's already made clear through some other means). If the magazine also publishes fantasy or horror, then you should add fantasy fiction magazine or horror fiction magazine to appropriate sentences in the main text of the article itself. Putting these in the 'See also' section doesn't make it clear what you mean. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"See Also"s are generally used sparingly, if at all. It is generally much more useful to wikilink appropriate terms within the article. I also question your theory that all SF magazines are also horror magazines and fantasy magazines. (John W. Campbell, I suspect, would be horrified by such an accusation against Analog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I said most. Not all. Having read Analog I would have to say that it is an exception. Pmcalduff (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to argue with you (really). However, I think adding these links into leading sentences will be very very difficult at times. Take the example of “Fantastic” magazine:

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy]] and [[science fiction]] [[magazine]]  published in the [[United States]] from 1952 to 1980. 

Fantastic was a fantasy and science fiction magazine published in the United States from 1952 to 1980.

Now that looks good but the links will take you to fantasy (the genre), science fiction (the genre) and magazines (in general). While those links are well and good they don’t link back to the pages for other “science fiction magazines” or other “fantasy fiction magazines”.

Okay so I change it to:

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy fiction magazine]] and  a [[science fiction magazine]] published in the [[United States]]  from 1952 to 1980. 

Fantastic was a fantasy fiction magazine and a science fiction magazine published in the United States from 1952 to 1980.

Well now it links to pages for other “science fiction magazines” and “fantasy fiction magazines” but we’ve lost the links to fantasy (the genre) and science fiction (the genre) plus it now looks redundant and awkward to read so someone will probably come along and change it back.

So I change it to:

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy fiction magazine|fantasy]] and  a [[science fiction magazine|science fiction]] magazine published in  the [[United States]] from 1952 to 1980. 

Fantastic was a fantasy and a science fiction magazine published in the United States from 1952 to 1980.

Now it reads nicely but when someone clicks on the link for “fantasy” they will be expecting to get “fantasy” not “fantasy fiction magazines” and when they click on “science fiction” they will be expecting to get “science fiction” not “science fiction magazines”. And we still don’t have links to fantasy (the genre) and science fiction (the genre).

And that is of course only with fantasy and SF. Some magazines publish fantasy SF and horror which will make it even more difficult.

So how can I do it???

That's a reasonable question. I think the answer in this case is that the lead is too short. The version you give with the piped link is actually OK; the word "fantasy" is attached to "magazine" syntactically, and I don't think the reader will be very surprised. However, a couple of additional sentences talking about the mixture of genres in the magazine would give you the ability to link directly to the articles on those genres. I think that's a better approach. For another point of view take a look at Authentic Science Fiction, which is a featured article but does not link to science fiction directly anywhere. It just links to science fiction magazine. I think that's actually OK; anyone who doesn't know what sf is will certainly be able to click through from the magazine article. It would also be possible to link to science fiction in the first sentence of the body of the article; that would be fine. Using "See also" links is a weaker choice because they only appear at the end. I've seen comments to the effect that all "see also" links should eventually disappear as the material they relate to should appear in the article itself; I don't know if that's always going to be true but it's a good goal. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another alternative is

'''''Fantastic''''' was a [[fantasy fiction magazine|fantasy]]  and [[science fiction magazine]] published in the [[United States]] from 1952 to 1980. 

This keeps "science fiction magazine" in the same link, and by precedessor context the link to "fantasy fiction magazine" won't be a surprise. And as Mike Christie says, "science fiction" and "fantasy fiction" are indirect "parent links" that the reader can click through to. Or, you can work them into the article later if you want. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- glad to see someone working on the sf magazines; there's a lot more that could be done there. However, I wanted to suggest that you might think about using the "minor" flag a bit less. There's certainly variation among editors about when to use it, but generally I think it's wise to restrict it to formatting errors, typos, clean up, and so on. You added a whole section to the Bedsheet article, and an image to Weasel word; I have no issues with your edits but I don't think these are really minor edits. Just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Since about 90% of my edits are "minor" I changed my default setting to "minor" and kind of forgot about it. I'll change it back. By the way, I removed the image from Weasel word shortly after putting it up. At the time i though it would be funny to put the picture of a real weasel on the page but then (wisely) decided that others might view my joke as vandalism.

I'd forgotten that you could set "minor" as default; yes, I think you're right to change it. Better to mistakenly mark something non-minor than the reverse. Sounds like you made the right decision on the weasel too. Just FYI, I hope to get back to some of the magazine articles soon and take one or more to WP:FAC, so I may run into you there. I was thinking of doing Imagination (magazine), but haven't decided yet. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a first issue cover to Imagination (magazine) in case you do.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Ender's Game series short stories, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alexfusco5 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. However, there are separate articles for each of the stories on that page making the plot summaries redundant. I was trying to link to the articles.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try shortening it and using {{Main|main article name}} Alexfusco5 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Liahona, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I wasn't playing around. I used that information to create a separate article on the magazine complete with a magazine cover and links to other similar magazines and an external link to .pdf versions of the magazine. Pmcalduff (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was hanging around the recent changes page looking for vandals to revert/accidental deletions/etc, when I saw that article lose a lot of text without any explanation. In future, I would recommend always using an edit summary, or else risk other busy-bodies like me reverting your work. If you are likely to forget to use the edit summary box, there is a setting in your profile that you can change to get reminders if it is ever blank. StephenBuxton (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I'm proposing restoring this section - see my reasoning and proposed wording for the section on the talk page. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Zeborah (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go (Censored) yourself, asshole. Leave the O.S. Card article alone, he's a dirty Bush-loving Zionist kike, and the article needs to reflect these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.166.197 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am truly appalled by this comment, especially as it comes from someone supposedly on "my side" on this argument. I do believe that the wiki article on Card should accurately report his homophobic views and his opinion that these views are not homophobic, but I am disgusted by this comment and the anti-Semitic sentiments it expresses, as well as the rudeness towards you. Sincerely, Yonmei (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your kind words. The writer of this filth is not only rude and racist but sadly misinformed. Card is a Mormon not Jewish. Pmcalduff (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your awesome work creating Navboxes pertaining to Orson Scott Card. Great job, and happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pmcalduff (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created a page for Frank Herbert’s short story "A Matter of Traces" and you rated it as "start class" on the quality scale which I appreciate. The reason I'm writing to you is because I have created pages on other short stories (some of which were, in my opinion, better than the one you evaluated) have had them rated as stubs. Probably the best page I've created was on the short story "Gert Fram" by Orson Scott Card. I was a bit surprised when it got a stub rating. What exactly is the difference between a stub and a start class page? Pmcalduff (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of stub vs. start can be kind of arbitrary, as the actual criteria are relatively vague. I personally feel like stubs are total bare-bones articles, and that Start class covers a broader range of small/incomplete articles. Some editors are more strict. In the case of "A Matter of Traces," it needs expansion but I think it covers the basics, which to me is beyond a stub. I also "upgraded" "Gert Fram" because as you say, it's more substantial. — TAnthony^Talk 18:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page.

I hope you can provide reliable sources for the short story to show that it is notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albedo One was in danger of being deleted. I noted you as one of the early contributers. Not sure if you have a horse in the race or not.

I am just writing to let you know, I substantially edited it and rewrote it. But being unfamiliar to the subject, I could not confirm it still makes sense. Fortunately in wiki land, all things can be undone.

The unimpeachable change I made was creating the magazine info box, and fleshing out some of the references. --K3vin (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I will be reading those review you sent and some others and I will make that section that you suggested as soon as I can. I'm a bit busy with finals for school and finding a job right now, so it probably won't come to fruition until 2009 though.

Also, I wondering if you could give me your opinion on something. I noticed that the timeline that is up on the Enderverse main page is a little off now that I've read the book. Namely, it is missing a few short stories, and the short story "Investment Counselor" is not in the right place. Anyways, I made a new timeline that I think is in the proper order and has everything included, but before I uploaded it I wanted to get someone else' opinion on how it looks. There are two versions I'll show you; one has arrow like the original one does, and one doesn't. Here are the links:

No Arrows
W/ Arrows

Let me know what you think.

Thanks again

-Jelloshooter (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a bit smaller. I'm not sure if I can make it any smaller than this though while still keeping it readable.

Smaller
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelloshooter (talk • contribs) 20:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent articles like this one; it's excellent to see contributions to an area we don't have much on. However, all articles on Wikipedia have to reference reliable sources. Could you please reference the articles you've written? Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you need help. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Noctua (cooling) 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 an organization or company, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. 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. RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Subterranean.jpg is currently orphaned so I have tagged it for deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Supersciencestories.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm writing here because you've contributed constructively to the article for The Future Fire in the past, and this article has been nominated for deletion, on grounds that seem to me flimsy but hard to argue with. I was wondering if you'd be willing to contribute to the discussion at [1]. Thanks. Gabrielbodard (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Template:OrsonScottCardEnderShortStories , 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. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have over 50 edits at Bram Stoker, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Derivative works and cultural references templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Popular cat names, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nabi. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bully and the Beast 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/Bully and the Beast 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. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Master Alvin 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/Master Alvin 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.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:00, 11 October 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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmcalduff. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dragons of Darkness 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/Dragons of Darkness 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. Rathfelder (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmcalduff. 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]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rasputin (Card novel) 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/Rasputin (Card novel) 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. Sitush (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pmcalduff. 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]

An article you recently created, Amtaedo, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. PC78 (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amtaedo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting my page Amtaedo so quickly. I know there are a lot of pages still waiting for acceptance. However, I'm curious as to why my page was sent to draftspace in the first place. I realize that when I first created it, it was a bit barebones. However, according to your post "If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request." The thing is, my account is over twelve years old, I have made thousands of edits and have probably created over a hundred new pages without this happening. Pmcalduff (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC) You got me curious. Actual numbers: Live edits: 7,705; Pages created: 323; Files uploaded: 148 Pmcalduff (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Amtaedo book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Fantasyfictionmagazine.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Spacesciencefiction.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OSCdestinies.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]