User talk:Sjc
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This user may have left Wikipedia. Sjc has not edited Wikipediasince March 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Hi Sjc, I justimported 10 edits of your user page from theNostalgia Wikipedia, a copy of the Wikipedia database from 20 December 2001. I'm going through thelist of most heavily edited pages on the Nostalgia Wikipedia, and your user page was #769 on that list. I Hope you don't mind, and that the earlier history isn't a hindrance to your work.Graham8714:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sjc! Thank you for your contributions. I am abot alerting you that5 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living personsmust be sourced. If you were to addreliable,secondarysources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current54 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the{{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thanks!--DASHBot (talk)20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| ||||
Content
Hello,you created the pageSiperia as a stub in 2006. Since then house has been destroyed in a fire, amogst others. I am seeking todelete this poor quality article, and would much appreciate comments. Thank you! --hydrox (talk)11:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sjc, I encountered your user pages again while doing another search for lost edits in the Nostalgia Wikipedia. This time I'm searching for pages that end in "/talk" rather than the proper suffix of "/Talk"; any pages using "/talk" were swallowed up in the conversion to Phase II software in January 2002. Therefore I imported the edits atSjc/talk on the Nostalgia Wikipedia toUser talk:Sjc/old. While I was checking your talk page history for any signs of the 2001 text, I discovered that several of your user pages were improperly deleted by an adminbot run byMZMcBride (talk ·contribs) in April 2008. The adminbot searched for user pages which were not attached to an account, and deleted them all indiscriminately; for example, there is no user by the name of "Sjc (old Talk 3)", soUser:Sjc (old Talk 3) was deleted. The adminbot also deleted user pages of accounts from 2001, just because they weren't registered, such asUser:Mike Dill. I have undeleted all the affected pages and moved them to more appropriate titles, so *you*, rather than a crazy computer program, can decide what to do with them. I undeleted and moved these pages in your userspace:User:Sjc/old Talk 2,User:Sjc/admin reference,User:Sjc/Work in Progress, andUser:Sjc/old Talk 3. If you want any of these pages re-deleted, either tag them or let me know. However I (and other admins) would be more reluctant to delete the talk pages perthe policy about user talk page deletion.Graham8711:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sjc, I'm not sure if this page is still operational, I saw you made some edits in March. I see that you created most of the copy forMarina Tsvetaeva and would love to talk with you about it, if you are still around. I'm trying to add the required in-line citations which is quite a job after the fact. The prose and narrative stand up really well, I think. Would be great to pick your brain. Drop me a line if you can. Best wishesSpan (talk)09:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 | Happy Birthday, Sjc, from theWikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a nice day!LoganTalkContributions00:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
| |||
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleVictor Meldrew is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Meldrew 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 template from the top of the article.Koopatrev (talk)09:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sjc,
The article forPhilippe Buonarroti has been challenged as to whether he was a Freemason. As you added this, would you be able to provide a citation please?
JASpencer (talk)17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are receiving this message because of arecent change to theadministrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at thebureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only throughWP:RFA. Thank you.MBisanztalk00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGunnies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunnies 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 template from the top of the article.SL93 (talk)05:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleAl-Qanoon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qanoon 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.OrangesRyellow (talk)12:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleDraugr, recently moved toDraug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found atTalk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. (I note the retirement notice, but thought I should notify you anyway as a courtesy.)Yngvadottir (talk)20:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the currentArbitration Committee election. TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipediaarbitration 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome toreview the candidates' statements and submit your choices onthe voting page. For the Election committee,MediaWiki message delivery (talk)08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been mentioned atWikipedia:Missing Wikipedians.Ottawahitech (talk)04:09, 29 July 2016 (UTC)pleaseping me[reply]
The articleThe Cloggies has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unreferenced and completely irrelevant.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Trunky (talk)10:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articleTimex (Unix) has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A timex command that does not have any kind of independent notability. There do not appear to be any sources that discuss it any significant manner.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Rorshacma (talk)15:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smuggling in fiction until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here10:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirectWorld War II/Edited Text has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § World War II/Edited Text until a consensus is reached.Steel1943 (talk)23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One Foot in the Grave has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Spinixster(chat!)07:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articleBeast of Bodmin Moor has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Believe that this article should be deleted for the following reasons:
1 - Poorly sourced to the point of being effectively unsourced, with nearly all sources being random blogs and "cryptozoology" (a recognised pseudoscience) books.
2 - Subject is not notable enough to warrant its own page, the only fact undisputed (that there is an urban legend regarding a big cat on Bodmin Moor) can be included under the page "British big cats" which covers this precise topic in general.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to thehistory of each individual page for details. Thanks,FastilyBot (talk)09:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monk (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Pokelego999 (talk)00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cloggies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Dronebogus (talk)08:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic screwdriver until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Jontesta (talk)04:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
John Maynard Keynes has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)02:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingston upon Hull has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/JN Data A/S until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Cinder painter (talk)12:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shanghai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)18:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red Dwarf has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)21:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plymouth has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)15:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Escape from New York has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)03:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Poem of the End until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
