User talk:Jossi

This account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

There are at least two kinds of games.

One could be called finite, the other infinite.

The finite game is played for the purpose of winning, and thereby ending the game.

An infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play ... and bringing as many persons as possible into the play.

Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries.

Finite players are serious; infinite games are playful.

Finite players try to control the game, predict everything that will happen, and set the outcome in advance. They are serious and determined about getting that outcome. They try to fix the future based on the past.

Infinite players enjoy being surprised. Continuously running into something they didn't know will ensure that the game will go on. The meaning of the past changes depending on what happens in the future.

All games are inherently voluntary. There might be consequences of not playing, but there is always a choice required. There are certain rules and boundaries that appear to be externally defined, and you choose to follow them or not. If you stop following them you aren't playing the game any longer.

There is no rule that says you have to follow the rules, and there is no rule that says you have to play. If you have to play, you cannot really play.

All finite games have rules. If you follow the rules you are playing the game. If you don't follow the rules you aren't playing.

Infinite players play with rules and boundaries. They aren't taking them serious, and they can never be trapped by them, because they use rules and boundaries as part of their playing.

Players can do what they do seriously, because they must do it, because they must survive to the end, and are afraid of the consequences of not playing or not winning. Or, players can do everything they do playfully, always knowing they have a choice, having no need to survive the way they are, allowing every element of the play to transform them, taking pleasure in every surprise they meet. Those are the differences between finite and infinite players.

You can play finite games within an infinite game. You can not play infinite games within a finite game.

There is only but one infinite game.

Paraphrased from James P. Carse, Finite and infinite games: A Vision of Life in Play and Possibility

≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

---

[Unsure if you wish for messages on your talk page; if you don't, please remove at your leisure.]
Very sorry to see you leave, Jossi. I fully respect your decision to retire, but do know that I would be very happy to see you make a return to actively contributing at some point.
My very best, AGK 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As would I. I disagreed with some of your decisions, but think you have much to offer the community and the Project. Don't let some sour grapes disinterest you - make grappa! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see you leave the project; you were a valuable asset to this community. Best wishes, seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions were benevolent, reasoned and always truthful, in my mind; it is a surprise that you departed so suddenly. It is a real shame you have left. Good luck. Caulde 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(As above, please move or remove this message at your discretion if you don't want it here.) I can't say we always got along, but I certainly always was glad to see you in a difficult situation. Best of luck to you, wherever that great infinite game takes you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to see you go. When I was a newbie you were extraordinarily kind and patient with me and I greatly appreciated it. Best of luck to you! Renee (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit thick sometimes. So, hum, real life is the only infinite game, wikipedia is a finite game. Since wikipedia is a finite game, at some point in wikipedia's game you stop running into surprising stuff that you didn't know about, and players wind up being being trapped by wikipedia's rules, being afraid of consequences of not "winning", etc. Text between lines: wikipedia ougth to be an infinite game, but it's not. Did I get it right? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, Enric ...

Look at it this way, collaboration is the antithesis of winning. Players in a game can be focused in terminating the game by winning or by declaring once side as the loser. In collaboration, all players are focused intently in keeping the game going.

Wikipedia is indeed a finite game, but has embodied many traits of an infinite game. For example , there is WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it., i.e. if a rule prevents the game to continue, ignore it. The challenge is, thought, as Wikipedia grows in importance, authority, and reach, it's basic principles of collegial collaboration, civility, anybody can edit, free content, and neutral point of view (WP:FIVE) are being challenged by more traditional forces, which I would call routinization. This routinization is visible in the quite large body of policies, guidelines, manuals of style, etc. that has developed as well as the processes developed to keep the game going: Arbitration, Administrators, Page protection, Bans, Blocks etc. (Note that I am not judging that to be good or bad, simply stating a fact: after all I was quite involved in these aspects myself. )

As soon as these routinizing aspects begin consuming too many resources — and in WP the only resource is volunteer time (besides $$ needed to run the servers and keep a small staff) — the purpose of the game begin to be lost: Rather than build new articles, improve new ones, expand the number of players, encourage participation, etc. the most experienced people and those with most time, tend to spend their wiki-time in areas that limit play. I am not arguing that these tasks are not needed; they are. Only that over time, the fundamental principles of Wikipedia get lost or constrained in such a manner that it impinges in these principles and may eventually lead to terminating play. As an editor that invested quite a bit of time in that area, I am aware of the dichotomy it presents and the challenges in bridging it.

Another challenge is when players try to bring about other games into Wikipedia than Wikpiedia's own. Players try and transpose the games they have chosen to play IRL, into this project. That is why we have WP:BATTLE, the other side of WP:WRW. Just witness the ongoing political, scientific, religious, and other such disputes that have been developing over the last years (check WP:RFAR/C for a good sample), and the many efforts by the community to overcome these challenges. A notable point is that in almost every arbitration case (with some notable exceptions), the result is the imposition of restrictions to participate fully in the game ... "in order to continue playing, you are now restricted from playing", an obvious contradiction.

So, as long as there are editors that will do everything possible to keep the game going, and do that with such grace and diligence that does not result in restricting play, Wikipedia may have a chance. But if these editors that are intent in winning the game at the expense of keeping the playing going, become those that steer the project forward, then it may not. My opinion is that Wikipedia is at that cross-road. The new Arbitration committee, which IMO has more diversity than ever before, as well as having people that I admire for the brilliance of their minds and the generosity of their hearts, may be the ones tasked to see this through, that is if they managed to bring the community around to support their efforts when exploring these challenges.

Per Carse, it boils down to choice If you have to play, you cannot play. It seems that those that want to win the game, are usually those that feel compelled to play it, and are those that play it too seriously for their own good. And those that want to keep the game going are usually those that edit with a smile on they face, enjoying the game, bringing new players to the game and expanding the possibility of play.

So, my decision to retire is based on that choice: because I can. I said this without judgment of other players: I wish them wisdom in their own choices, playfulness in their play, and my best.

Happy New Year,

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm happy that you are not retiring because of bitterness. Myself, I'm staying if only because I can't resist seeing all the process first hand , you know, watching train crashes in slow motion :) I don't understand everything that you say, but I'll take your comments and try to be more playful on my editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm only seeing your edits now after you have left I'm also sorry to see you go and hope you reconsider in due course. You may be happy to know that I'm making some progress with COI reform (one small step at a time), for example WP:NPA and WP:WHYCOI. Perhaps you would consider helping out with such things, if not involving yourself in editing as such. In particular you and I share the view of volunteer time being a precious resource while 1's and 0's are a commodity, and I hope to "leverage" my contributions by trimming back some of the areas where time is wasted (e.g. 50k AfDs over 5k articles). Would you consider helping me write an essay on "respect for human time" or similar? -- samj _in^out 13:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasta luego, amigo. If I may be so bold, I hope that you made your decision to leave for the sake of your own spiritual health and not in the hopes of influencing Wikipedia. Because even a token participation here on your part would be infinitely more helpful than leaving. But if you left because you felt that continued participation was not in the best interests of your continued spiritual growth then I am with you, brother. I will hang in, though. Best Holiday Wishes. --Justallofthem (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Take care dude, don't neglect your video games and remember to have crazy fun on the weekends. tilda tilda tilda tilda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortello (talk • contribs) 07:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed your admin templates on your userpage as you are not an administrator. I noticed your retirement message - perhaps you just forgot to remove them before leaving. Any queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. :) — neuro^(talk) 00:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Peace
		Best wishes for the New Year.   Will Beback  talk  18:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that your positive experiences with Wikipedia were overtaken by negative ones. I too am very sorry to see you leave. Perhaps time away will allow you to come to terms with how things turned out. If that itch to contribute to Wikipedia ever comes back, a good way to regain your joy of contribution might be to look over your earliest contributions and follow along the path to where you realized that this is where you wanted to be. Best wishes. -- Suntag ☼ 16:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article you created: Digital artist may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital artist .

The faster you respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Digital artist : google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
3. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
4. You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tao-te-ching005.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you were the original uploader of Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg, used in Intelligent design, I thought you might like to know a proceeding was brought to remove the Time image by outright deletion from the wiki . It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_February_12#Time_evolution_wars.jpg . If you are at all interested in the issue, it would be reasonable to post a "keep" or a "delete" at that page. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jossi,

So sad to see you go! Whenever I would see your name enter a discussion, over and over again, I relaxed, here was a wikipedian with knowledge and fairness!

I am also writing to apologize. When I read the register article, I accepted it as mostly accurate, without taking the time to really look at the facts and participated in the Prem Rawat arbitration, casting my voice against you.

I truly and deeply appologize for not trusting my experience with you and casting my opinion with a questionable source, and not taking the time to really investigate and form my own opinion.

Hope wiki-retirement is treating you well.

Warmly, Hohohahaha (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Vertical tabs sample.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Momento (talk · contribs) and Rumiton (talk · contribs) are banned from editing Prem Rawat or any related article (including talk pages) for one year. The Prem Rawat article and all related articles are subject to revert limitations for one year. Several users are admonished for their conduct in the case and all parties and other interested editors are encouraged to restart mediation in relation to Prem Rawat. Also, should Jossi (talk · contribs) return to Wikipedia to edit Prem Rawat articles, he is required to contact the Arbitration Committee beforehand. These remedies are in addition to, and do not replace, the remedies passed in RFAR/Prem Rawat.

For the Committee. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

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

Notability-tagged since December, numerous unsourced statements

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.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium '73, to which you made significant contributions, has now been promoted to WP:Featured article status. Thank you for your help.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

• Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
• Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
• To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
• Other restrictions :
  • Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
  • ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
  • Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BullRangifer#Defend_free_speech

-- Brangifer (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your work will last for long time. Wikipedia:Levels_of_competence is very simple, yet one of the more beautiful pages about the project. +sj+ 05:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Condmilk.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Alx 91 (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this user retired back near the end of 2008 and never made any contributions after that, why is he/she indefinitely blocked as a "sockpuppet master"? Was the user allowed to defend itself? Why was no documentation provided? Note that I've opened up a thread about this here: Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Documenting sockpuppet investigations.2C particularly conclusive cases. II | (t - c) 19:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at that thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of an alternate account was an evasion of the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Jossi required to resolve disputes before returning to this area, and also had the effect of evading scrutiny, and so it was a violation of WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence in that case was presented regarding lingering disputes. How far do we have to dig to get a straight answer here? Does this basically amount to "before you come back, check in with us so we can slap you on the wrist"? Jossi is getting banned for that kind of process wankery? You guys are better than this. -- Ned Scott 12:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Pergamino's edits, you'll see that he was intentially deceptive about his knowledge of Wikipedia and his favorite topic. Further, Pergamino started editing while there was an active RFAR in which Jossi would have been a party if he hadn't "retired". So the use of the sock was not only deceptive, but it served to evade ArbCom sanctions. Regarding the sock investigation, checkuser results are never released, so that's nothing unusual. The ArbCom itself made the call, not just a functionary or admin. See the notes at User talk:Pergamino. There's also evidence of past sockpppet use.   Will Beback  talk  18:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Jossi was thrown in as a party of the second arb case it would be very unlikely that any scansions on him would have been this severe. It's so easy to piss on good editors of the past and make them out to be villains, what with their deceptive and evil intentions. If I were to just speculate I would say that Jossi did this to avoid all the BS and get back to improving actual articles. It wouldn't excuse the violation of the arbcom case, sure, but it puts things into perspective. It sickens me to see editors treated like this. The taboo of the sockpuppet seems to trump all rational logic. -- Ned Scott 05:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you speculate? All of Wikipedia administration is against Jossi now? He broke the rules, he got spanked like he knew he would if he got caught, where's the issue here? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 05:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty startling that even now nobody can point me to a sockpuppet investigation page where a Checkuser publicly confirmed the evidence of sockpuppeting, with some diffs. Can you point me to the page? Why are you so against public evidence? II | (t - c) 05:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser investigations are routinely done without posting an investigation, and in many SPIs the only feedback is "confirmed". I'm not sure what other evidence is required beyond checkuser, but I assume the ArbCom could be contacted directly with legitimate inquiries.   Will Beback  talk  05:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In User talk:Pergamino, the first comment is by User:Rlevse saying that he had checkusered the user[1], and then the Arcom clerk User:Tiptoety said that he had also seen some of the evidence and that he confirmed the basis for the block[2].

Also notice that the other sock User:Sepho said that he had communicated the identity of his main to an arbcom member[3], and that 8 hours later Arbcom member User:Stephen Bain (bainer) declined his unblock request saying that it was not a legitimate usage of an alternative account[4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest contacting them about what evidence they found and how convincing it was and why. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely that Jossi was using those sockpuppets inappropriately. But the problem is that the standard practice on Wikipedia is to use evidence which is not collected and organized systematicallym and sockpuppet ban templates which do not point to the evidence, so it's a huge hassle to find out when the sockpuppet verdict was a mistake, and only insiders know what happened. That's not sustainable, and it is a very cabal-like practice. II | (t - c) 17:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put: No. Checkuser evidence is private to protect the privacy of everyone involved. Even if there were an SPI page opened, you'd have no more information than a {{confirmed}} template on the page and a note acknowledging that the accounts were blocked: exactly what is available here. — Coren ^(talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your underlying premise is that diffs and supporting evidence beyond a "Checkuser" confirmation are unnecessary, or that the public doesn't need to see this supporting evidence. Simply put: that's absurd. Plenty of people edit from the same locations in the same topics. Sockpuppet case investigation pages present the evidence (diffs), which are otherwise difficult to track down. They should be opened in any major case just to allow people to look for the evidence themselves. Also, the argument that this is to defend the accused's privacy seems weak. Sockpuppet investigation case pages do not violate the accused's privacy. The accused always benefits from some due process and transparency, as do we all. II | (t - c) 16:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the policy itself, then I would suggest that the correct place to have this discussion would be here or here. It would seem inappropriate to have this discussion on any user's talkpage unless there is something special about this user's ban. Are you posting on every user talkpage of confirmed sockpuppeteers? It would seem you haven't even attempted to discuss your views on checkuser confirmation on any policy pages yet, though that is the logical place to start. Also, you're assuming we only have the checkuser results to rely on, even though on the Sockpuppet investigations page we have this, "CheckUser does not solve cases. It provides additional evidence of a technical nature that can be considered along with behavioral evidence, and may help clarify whether misuse has taken place". I would think that if you really wanted to improve this process you would do so from the policy pages where the involved admins already are, and not rely on whoever wanders past this page. -- Maelefique ^(talk) 18:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the in the opening paragraph (Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Documenting sockpuppet investigations.2C particularly conclusive cases)? I would prefer to discuss this in the policy area, but there were statements here that I wanted to respond to. See Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Ground rules. II | (t - c) 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we should cut and paste this *entire* discussion to the appropriate talk pages instead of cluttering up userspace, is that what you're recommending? Seems entirely appropriate to me too. Would you think Sock puppetry or Sockpuppet investigations is best? Or possibly to one, with a note on the other linking it? -- Maelefique ^(talk) 19:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about copy/pasting...the sockpuppet investigations (SPI) page is, I guess, a subpage of the sockpuppetry policy page, but the SPI page probably has a more traffic and therefore more people watching it. Right now it's sort of in Checkuser. I don't know how controversial this is. I dropped a notice over at WT:SPI. II | (t - c) 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the basis for this dispute is. Is there any doubt that Pergamino was a sock of Jossi's? Has Jossi denied it or complained about the process? I don't believe so. I think his silence is an implicit agreement with the finding.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that retired users don't check their Wikipedia watchlist every couple days, or sometimes even at all. People move on with their lives. In the mess above there's some decent evidence that Pergamino was Jossi, but there's still no link to the initial request for Checkuser, what the basis was, ect. The link you provided (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2#Jossi required to resolve disputes before returning to this area) had zero evidence - it was circular (Jossi is banned because [see log of his block]). The most convincing evidence is from Enric, who said that one of the socks basically admitted to being Jossi in an email. II | (t - c) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that mail was sent July last year and has nothing to do with more recent events. JN466 23:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CU evidence is private. Arbcom gets reports/requests/etc of all sorts everyday. If a CU is justified, an CU check will be run, as was the case here. These are called 'private CUs' and happen all the time. The requirement for a CU is that the evidence presented meet CU requirements. An SPI report may or may not be filed. It is place to collect most sock reports. Arbcom handles a lot of private matters and we can not, nor do we need to, file an SPI when we get a report/request. In this Jossi case at hand, we hand on wiki evidence, private correspondence, and a CU check. All together a very solid case for socking was shown, plus Jossi did not notify us as required by the arbcom ruling. I can post the onwiki public evidence here if someone is interested. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is better discussed over at the thread I started or its subthread (Wikipedia talk:CheckUser#Ground rules). The question is - why do these requests need to be private? Are there any rules which "the community" can read governing how these private discussions go? And why can't ArbCom file an SPI? But please don't answer these questions here. II | (t - c) 21:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F

David1982m (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Jossi! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 493 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anay disp detail.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joface317 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SuperSonic SPEED (formerly known as ChaosControl1994). 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:S t o x 22.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:In still2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Portrait by Jossi Fresco.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alfonsina y el Mar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Still Life digital.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 20:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Seth Godin.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Casabella 471.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the Fair Use Rationale from File:Lacasabella.jpg. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Concierto aranjuez .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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Alpha Quadrant (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thanksfrom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Marzeah_Papyrus-hi.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Closedmouth (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once 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. Eeekster (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kaltura Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Copperplate Gothic 29BC.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 04:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List fact has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. BDD (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Richard Regan, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Richard Regan" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Easily even speedy and PROD material as my searches found nothing better than some passing mentions, and otherwise unusable for notability, at News, Books and browsers.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 08:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Skeleton diag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 17:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dr James T. Richardson.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 19:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protection msg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:163.150.225.201/Archive 1, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:163.150.225.201/Archive 1 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:163.150.225.201/Archive 1 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SD0001 (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Golden section page.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

orphaned image, no encyclopedic use

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Frutiger sample.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Gutemberg canon.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Van de Graaf.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Van de Graaf.svg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Bodoni book.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Rider-Waite-Smith deck.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant to the individual images on the Rider-Waite tarot deck

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Digital painting of flower (monotone blue).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned file with no obvious value in transferring to Commons

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Salavat (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aspirare. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Aspirare until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jossi,

As a very late update to the Prem Rawat arbitration case, the contentious topic designation, previously "discretionary sanctions", originally "article probation", has been removed following a successful request for amendment.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

This notification may be mostly unnecessary, but as you had been a party to the original case, I thought you might be interested in hearing that after about 15 years, this remnant has been removed. Until today, it was listed at Wikipedia:General sanctions § Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]